I 



■88 W 
HH 



I 



I 



Ml' 




•HPl;tS{oiOPfeA 


f| !ij| ! ! iii^|*li| w||Jlpif$iff| 'ti'^r'f 1<ol'^^/ : ^- : - • : 








; : ; : '-;!'Jj- • ;.;;-^ ; :;',ki;:-- 'Ov "n Mppp%i >•> >.' - ^Pil 







4q 












* .•' 



• ^4. ^ ♦ 



*- ^ 



Eft: "ov* :4k'- ^ :<$«-. ** »« 



^A^ 



>* V *w» •*8afe: **** .' 



a. 






** 






o* ..sir% % ^ .. 













^ ^Va % ^ <£ «» 4*SBgv , ^ ^ ^Wa» *<? 










»*. <W •'• 



,4 0, 






$<%. 












V^ 1 



4 















*<>■ 






/ > 



^ o°*** *C 










«*#*, e? 

•**<£ 






3 ^ 






















\ 



^/« 




^^^/•WR-V 9 





















% V * 



v-^-;< . . ..v^y . . . . v 












THE DIFFICULTIES 

OP 

ABMINIAN METHODISM: 

A SEEIES OF LETTERS, 

ADDRESSED TO BISHOP SIMPSON, OF PITTSBURGH. 

BY 

WILLIAM iNNAN, 



AUTHOR OF "LETTERS ON PSALMODY," &C. 



FIFTH EDITION. 






" The prejudice against religious controversy is irrational and hurtful." — Dr. J. M. 
Mason. 

" The truth is usually elicited by conflict. Agreement is the result." — Prof. Hodge. 

" The evils of controversy are transient : the good it produces is permanent." — 
Robert Hall. 



PHILADELPHIA: 
WILLIAM S. & ALFRED MARTIEN, 

No. 606 CHESTNUT STREET. 
1861. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year I860, by 
WILLIAM ANNAN, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for tho Western Diitric 
of the State of Pennsylvania. 



STEREOTYPED BY W. S. HAVEN, PITTSBUBGn, PA. 



(o &S 



7 



LC Control Number 




tmp96 031704 



PREFACE 



In conversation a number of years ago with an esteemed friend, the 
Rev. (now Dr.) James Linn, of Bellefonte, Pa. the preparation of 
this work was first suggested. Three editions having been favorably 
received by the Christian public, the writer has been induced by the 
solicitations of honored brethren, to issue in an enlarged, and he 
hopes, improved form, a fourth edition. 

The work has not only been carefully revised, but in a great measure 
re-written. Every where the argument has been extended, and he trusts, 
strengthened, especially by quotations from leading Arminian authori- 
ties. The Letter on "Imputed Righteousness" is entirely new, being 
necessary to complete the investigation of the "Difficulties of Armin- 
ian Methodism." It has been the aim of the author to make his book, 
as far as possible, a full and satisfactory expose of the polemical weak- 
nesses of modern Arminianism. For this end he has gone to the fountains, 
to the accredited authorities of Episcopal Methodism. It has been 
his earnest desire to make her best and ablest writers speak for 
themselves. In connection with Arminian errors, he has also given 
a concise statement of revealed truth. 

An entirely new feature in the re-construction of this work, is the 
review of the " Objections to Calvinism," a work highly eulogized by 
Bishop Simpson, of Pittsburgh. This book has been constantly by 
our side, its most important and objectionable characteristics have 
been fairly stated, and if we mistake not, fully invalidated ; and in not 
a few instances, we trust, logically thrown back upon its author and 
indorsers. 

In reading these "Objections to Calvinism," and indeed in every 
other work from the same general source, we are constantly reminded 
of Bishop Horsely's advice to his clergy, in his last charge: "Take 
special care," said he, "in aiming your shafts at Calvinism, that you 
know what Calvinism is, * * * and that you can distinguish that 
which belongs to our common Christianity." It is a curious circum- 
stance, that in the "Refutation of Calvinism," one of his brother 
bishops, Tomline of Lincoln, assailed "Justification by Faith," as 
one of the monstrous doctrines of the Calvinistic theology ! For this 

(iu) 



iV PREFACE. 

fact we have the authority of the " Edinburgh Encyclopedia," Art. 
Calvinism. Well might the late Dr. Miller, of Princeton, say, that 
"no system was ever more grossly misrepresented or more foully vil- 
lified," and "that it would be difficult to find a writer or speaker who 
has opposed it, who has fairly represented the system, or who really 
appeared to understand it."* We fear the modern Bishop (at Pittsburgh), 
and Mr. Foster, whom he indorses, must fall under the same condem- 
nation. 

According to these authors, Calvinism is justly chargeable with 
"unaccountable and horrid teachings," "revolting and shameful de- 
formities," " inculcates licentiousness and recklessness, licenses 
crime;" "a man may become during life a devil in sin, but he cannot 
miss of heaven ;" " endangers all the interests of sound virtue and true 
religion ;" " dishonors and demonizes the God of the universe," &c. &c. 
Such, according to Bishop Simpson and Mr. Foster, are correct fea- 
tures of Calvinism ! Their book swarms with such misrepresentations 
as these, only worse, if that were possible ! And one of their chief 
authorities for these charitable statements, is the Presbyterian "Con- 
fession of Faith." Now in all Christian courtesy, we of course must 
suppose that these Arminian brethren and their church, which pub- 
lishes "The Objections to Calvinism," really believe their own state- 
ments. But if the picture be a true one, it is difficult to understand 
Mr. Wesley, when, in speaking of our Larger Catechism, which is a 
summary of Calvinistic doctrines, he says that, "in the main, it is a 
very excellent composition."! And how could he affirm, "I believe 
Calvin was a great instrument of God, and that he was a wise and pious 
man." "John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man." J Could 
such a man have taught a system of doctrine as foul and monstrous as 
Atheism itself? 

More than this: The Confession of Faith of our church, which 
Messrs. Foster and Simpson say they have demonstrably convicted of 
such enormities, was the work of the Westminster Assembly of 
Divines. Who were the members of that Assembly ? What was their 
character ? Let the " Methodist Quarterly Review "$ give the answer : 
That Assembly included " a galaxy of illustrious persons, of unequaled 
brightness" — "such were the leading spirits of the body" — "stars of 
the first magnitude." But according to Messrs. Simpson and Foster, 
this "unequaled galaxy of stars" shed upon the world unequaled 
darkness ! 

* On Presbyterianism, pp. 26, 27. f Original Sin, part 2, sec. 2. 

X Works, Yols. i. and ii. pp. 546, 475. \ For October, 184S. 



PREFACE. V 

Again: " That famous Confession," says the same high Methodist 
authority, "is in many particulars a remarkable production" — "a 
•well written instrument" — though "most thoroughly Calvinistic." 
" Whoever adopts it as the formulary of his faith, though he may err 
as to some speculative points, will be sound in all things essential to a 
saving appreciation of the way of salvation." Compare this honorable 
testimony with the statements of Messrs. Simpson and Foster. And 
what have been the practical results, the fruits of this Confession ? 
" The influence of the labors of the Assembly," adds the same "Meth- 
odist Quarterly," "has been extensive and controlling over multitudes 
of the better classes of the inhabitants * * * wherever the English 
language is spoken. To their formularies " — mark this ! — "millions have 
owed their preservation from destructive errors, their theological 
knowledge, and saving sober piety." And all this from a system 
which, in certain of its features, "inculcates licentiousness, licenses 
crime, and demonizes the God of the universe!" So at least say these 
Arminian brethren. 

But has not this "wild vine" of Calvinistic growth and culture, 
often produced "the grapes of Sodom and the clusters of Gomorrah?" 
The "Methodist Quarterly" shall answer: "Ever since," — i. e. since 
the meeting of the Westminster Assembly — "it (the Confession) has 
exerted a most salutary influence in the world. By it the Romanizing 
tendency of the English Establishment has been kept in check ; its 
opposition to uniformity has perpetuated religious liberty, while its deep- 
toned orthodoxy has stood as a bulwark against the onsets of every form 
of seductive error." These are certainly not the clusters of Sodom! 

In confirmation of these facts, the " Methodist Quarterly " next cites 
Scotland as " an exemplification of the practical tendency of these form- 
ularies," and quotes from the Life of Alexander Henderson what is 
called "a felicitous statement of the case," as follows: "These 
(Westminster) divines have erected a monument in almost every heart 
in Scotland. * * * Next to the introduction of Christianity, and 
the translation of the Bible into the vulgar tongue, the framing of the 
Confession of Faith and of the Catechism, has conferred the greatest 
boon on every Christian in our country." This differs slightly from the 
picture of Foster and Simpson ! 

Still further : The same Quarterly has a glowing eulogy of that 
distinguished Calvinist, Alexander Henderson, "who wrote the prin- 
cipal part of the Confession of Faith with his own hand." " He was 
evidently of that sort of men of which martyrs are made." "His 
country honors his memory as that of one of her chief benefactors 
1* 



VI PREFACE. 

and the whole Christian world owes him a debt of lasting gratitude." 
If our Arminian brethren, Foster and Simpson, are right, the Christian 
world must be grateful for very small favors ! 

Finally, says the Reviewer: "The famous Westminster Assembly, 
* * * in its origin, progress and end, was like a meteor bursting 
suddenly into being and beaming with unwonted splendor for a season, 
&c." "Not so, however, were its effects. Like the genial flowers and 
sunshine of early spring, it imparted life and strength to what had 
seemed utterly dead, * * * the pledge of the coming summer and 
the seed time of that harvest whose reaping is yet in progress." Such 
were, and continue to be the fruits of a system, which in several of its 
distinctive features, " licenses crime and endangers all the interests of 
sound virtue and true religion !" 

And even when this Arminian Reviewer speaks of " the vexed ques- 
tion of decrees," it is in a tone of candor and fairness very different 
from that which pervades the "Objections," &c. "It may be very 
difficult," he says, "by the force of logic, to evade the conclusion of the 
Predestinarians ; it is equally difficult for them to reconcile their own 
views to a sense of justice and the revealed character of God. Both 
parties in this controversy have need to learn that some things are too 
high for them. If Revelation discloses truths which threaten to clash 
in their remote consequences, it becomes us to leave those conse- 
quences to God, nor dare to dim the glory of His name by limiting his 
natural attributes of knowledge aud power, &c." The allusion we 
suppose to be especially to Dr. Adam Clarke's theological foibles in 
regard to Divine Foreknowledge. This Reviewer writes in a spirit 
which cannot be too strongly recommended to certain persons, who, 
with presumptuous daring, "rush in where angels fear to tread." But 
if he imagines that the Calvinistic scheme "so hides the moral perfec- 
tions of God, as to make him appear as an Almighty Tyrant," we 
can only say that in our humble judgment, the charge is altogether 
without foundation, and indeed may be fairly retorted upon his own 
system. But where there is so much that is fair and candid, so much 
that does honor both to the head and heart of the Reviewer, so much 
to evince a spirit that bows to the supremacy of truth, even when she 
frowns upon him — in such circumstances we cannot feel any great dis- 
position to find fault. 



From the very numerous expressions of approval which the writer 
has at different times received, the following are selected : 



PREFACE. Vll 

From the late Dr. Archibald Alexander. 
" The subject has been treated in a fair and masterly manner. The 
argumentative part of the work is admirably conducted. The book 
should be widely circulated in our Church. Such a defense against 
the ungenerous attacks of many assailants, was called for, and will 
effectually subserve the promotion of evangelical truth." 

From the Biblical Repertory. 
" The author has proved himself to be a workman that need not be 
ashamed. Whoever wishes to see the objections commonly made by 
Arminians to the Calvinistic system fairly rolled back on their own, 
will find satisfaction in the perusal of this volume." 

From the Rev. William Engles, D. D. Editor of " The Presbyterian." 
" Mr. Annan was induced to undertake this work in self-defense. 
* * * He has furnished a popular treatise, which cannot be easily 
answered ; hence his book has been assailed with great violence. But 
we can see no reason for so much wrath in the temper or style of this 
volume. He has carried the war into the enemy's territory. We 
advise Presbyterians, when assailed by Arminians, to procure and cir- 
culate this book." 

From Rev. Dr. Musgrave. 
" I was rejoiced to see a new edition of ' The Difficulties of Armin- 
lan Methodism.' It was quite time the slanders and gross misrepre- 
sentations of that denomination should be repelled and exposed. The 
author has ' used them up ' handsomely, and deserves the thanks of all 
who love truth, honesty, honor, and rational piety." 

From Rev. Dr. Elliott, of the Western Theological Seminary. 
" The work is well executed. The author has presented the difficul- 
ties of the system which he assails, in a clear and forcible manner. 
The radical authorities which he has introduced, greatly enhance the 
value of the work. Those who are so fond of exhibiting the difficulties 
of Calvinism, will here find room for the trial of their skill in settling 
the difficulties of their own system. The work is cheerfully recom- 
mended to the patronage of an intelligent Christian public." 

From the late Rev. Dr. Baird, Editor of the Pittsburgh Christian Herald. 
"It was wise to carry the war into the territory of the assailants, 
and this Mr. Annan has done with ability and success." 



V11I PREFACE. 

From a Review in the Presbyterian. 
" It is a work full of merit, from its rational exhibition of -what may 
be called theological absurdities — a luminous exposure of the absurd- 
ities of the Arminian system. The style, from its original method, is 
agreeable. It includes also an able defense of the doctrine of Calvin 
and others. To all who can obtain the book, we say — Read." 

From a Review in the Christian Herald. 
" A successful development of the difficulties of the Arminian system. 
I know of no volume so well adapted to expose the weak points of 
Methodism. The style is popular and sprightly, the argument pointed 
and concise. The ' Difficulties of Arminian Methodism ' are strongly, 
fairly, yet succinctly stated. The volume is convenient, portable, 
neatly executed and popularly written. It is therefore well adapted to 
strengthen Presbyterians in their confidence in the truth of their own 
system, and guard them against the claims of arrogant Arminians." 

From the New York Observer. 
This is a new edition of a very able and valuable work. The author 
has most powerfully repelled the objections usually made to the 
Calvinistic system, and fully demonstrated that Arminianism is open 
to much greater objections, and embarrassed with far greater diffi- 
culties. 

From the Princeton Biblical Repertory, for October, 1860. 
This work has an established reputation. It has received the 
stamp of general approbation, and we rejoice that so useful a volume 
is again sent forth in an improved form. The constant misrepre- 
sentation of our doctrines render this work a very valuable aid. 

From the American Presbyterian. 
This is a standard work, and perfectly exhaustive of the subject 
of which it treats. 



CONTENTS 



LETTER I. 

PAGE 

Introductory. — Circumstances which call for the work — Remarks 
upon the "Objections to Calvinism," ----- 11 

LETTER II. 

Difficulties in connection with the doctrine of Original Sin — The 
confused, incoherent and contradictory statements made on the 
subject, ---------- 28 

LETTER III. 

Same subject, continued— Relations to the Atonement, - -" 41 

LETTER IV. 
Same subject concluded — State and Prospects of Infants — Free- 
dom of the Will, ' - 56 

LETTER V. 

Difficulties on the subject of Foreknowledge — Predestination, 77 

LETTER VI. 

Same subject, continued, -------98 

LETTER VII. 

Election — Reprobation, - - - - - - - -113 

LETTER VIII. 

Same subject, continued, ---.-_- 136 

LETTER IX. 

Difficulties on the subject of Atonement: its nature and extent, 152 

LETTER X. 
Difficulties in connection with " Falling from Grace," - - 173 

LETTER XI. 
Difficulties on the subject of Justification and Imputed Right- 
eousness, - - ----- 192 

(ix) 



X CONTENTS. 

LETTER XII. 

Difficulties in reference to "Sinless Perfection," - 204 

LETTER XIII. 
Difficulties upon the subject of Regeneration, and the character- 
istics of a change of heart, ------ 226 

LETTER XIV. 

Difficulties in connection with Camp Meetings, - 242 

LETTER XV. 

Difficulties with regard to Religious Ordinances, Abuses, &c. - 252 

LETTER XVI. 
Difficulties of the Methodist Episcopal Form of Government — its 
exclusive and anti-republican character, - 261 

LETTER XVII. 

Difficulties in relation to certain Rights of Property, - - 273 

LETTER XVIII. 

Difficulties in regard to the powers of the Preachers — they fix their 
own salaries, and provide for their payment, - 287 

LETTER XIX. 

Are the Preachers' Salaries well paid ? - - - 292 

LETTER XX. 

Articles and Discipline — their origin and prominent features, 301 

APPENDIX I. 
False Quotations exposed, ---_-._ 314 

APPENDIX II. 
The Heathen World— its state and prospects, - - - 331 



DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. 



LETTEK I. 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

To Bishop Simpson : 

Rev. Sir — I take the liberty of addressing these 
Letters to you, for several reasons : 

1. You have been long a preacher, and for a time were one 
of the editors of the Methodist Episcopal church, and are 
well known as a zealous defender of its faith. 

2. Your ministerial brethren have elevated you to a posi- 
tion among the chief functionaries of their ecclesiastical sys- 
tem, and of course you stand upon the watch-tower as a 
prominent guardian of its administration. 

3. In a formal " Introduction" to the work called " Ob- 
jections to Calvinism," by the Rev. R. S. Foster, you have 
given your indorsement to the doctrinal caricature which he 
calls Calvinism. Thus you say, the " argumentation is 
strictly logical," " the book is very valuable," " well execu- 
ted," and of " great merit." The numerous extracts which 
appear in these Letters, will furnish appropriate illustrations 
of this nattering notice from your pen. Suffice it for the 
present to say, that to every well informed Presbyterian, it 
must seem marvelous, that you should employ such terms in 
relation to such a production. But as the act is done, and 
as the "Objections" are published " for the Methodist Epis- 
copal church" — as you have thus embarked your character 
as a theologian and a man of enlarged views, with that of 

(ii) 



12 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. 

Mr. Foster, there seems to be a propriety in directing these 
Letters to you. These facts will also explain why, in refer- 
ring to Mr. Foster's work, I couple your name with his — not 
only because you have indorsed his statements, but in your 
" Introduction" have yourself adopted some of the most 
offensive and injurious of them. 

To illustrate my meaning: in speaking of " the subject of 
Predestination," which you say " has for ages engaged the 
attention of theologians and philosophers" — you state " the 
questions which arise" as follows : " Is the destiny of every 
human being unchangeably determined before his birth, with- 
out reference to foreseen conduct ? Has the mind a power of 
choice ? Can it move freely within certain specified limits ? 
Will the nature of its movements and choice influence its 
eternal happiness?" " These questions," ywi add, "have 
in some form exercised the highest powers of the human in- 
tellect ;" and the obvious inference which you wish to have 
made, is that Calvinists or Predestinarians hold the following 
positions, viz. that " the eternal destiny of every man is 
unchangeably fixed before his birth without reference to his 
foreseen conduct" or character as righteous or wicked — that 
the mind has no power of choice — that it cannot move freely 
— that the nature of its movements and choice have no influ- 
ence on its eternal happiness." 

Such is Predestination I Such, according to Bishop Simp- 
son, are the doctrines held and taught by Presbyterians and 
other Calvinists. And the book which repeats and reiterates 
these impious statements, and attempts to fix them down 
upon Calvinistic churches, the Bishop indorses, and his sect 
publishes as one of "great merit /" Let the reader observe 
— Bishop S. does not aflirm merely that these impieties have, 
by some Anti-Calvinists been considered as legitimate infer- 
ences from the doctrine of Predestination. That would be 
bad enough — but he goes much farther. These are the 
questions ! These are the real points which have exercised 



Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 13 

and divided the minds of " theologians and philosophers." 
But so far as regards the Presbyterian church, we need hardly 
say that no person broaching such monstrous sentiments, 
could be received as a member of any of our ecclesiastical 
bodies — and if Bishop Simpson will undertake to prove such 
charges against any individual minister of our communion, 
we pledge our word that he shall be brought to trial, and if 
the Bishop shall sustain the accusation, that the guilty one 
shall be forthwith suspended from the office. 

It is no concern of ours, even though you could prove that 
" the Atheistical school of philosophers," " the Jewish 
Essenes" and " the Mohammedans," held the doctrine of 
Predestination, as you state it. So also it has been fashiona- 
ble for Arminian disputants to charge Calvinism with being 
nearly allied to Stoical fate. The Greek and Roman philos- 
ophers, called Stoics, are admitted by even Arminian authors, 
to have been the greatest, wisest and most virtuous of all the 
heathens ; and their sayings are often quoted by Arminians 
as a confirmation of some of the most important truths of 
Christianity ; particularly relating to the unity and perfec- 
tion of the GJ-odhead, a future state, the duty and happiness 
of mankind, &c. The doctrine of Fate, as held by the Stoics, 
was in some respects very erroneous, though they differed 
among themselves. And if any of them taught the same 
doctrine held by others of the ancient heathen — viz. that 
Fate was a power which overruled and controlled both men 
and gods, it was of course sheer Atheism. Even Bishop 
Simpson will not pretend to find any thing of this sort in 
Calvinism. But where do we find the " philosophers and 
theologians" of ancient and modern times, whose sympathies 
and views most nearly harmonized with those of modern Ar- 
minians ? We find them among the followers of Epicurus, 
the father of Atheism and licentiousness— among the Sad- 
ducees, who said " that there is no resurrection, neither angel, 
nor spirit" — and among the Mohammedans, " one of whose 
2 



14 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. 

sects, and portions of other sects," the Bishop admits, " held 
the freedom of the human will," t. e. in the Arminian sense 
of freedom ! And last but not least, " the Jesuits/' yes, 
"the Jesuits, who became the most indefatigable enemies 
of the Reformation, * * * were the advocates of (Ar- 
minian) free will I" Such is the testimony of Bishop S. 
himself ! Arminianism has great cause to be proud of her 
allies. 

In such volumes as the one which you have so profusely 
bepraised, it is common to find Calvinism represented as " a 
libel upon Deity, profane, scandalous, a system of blasphemy 
and impiety." But if this be true, it is really wonderful that 
so lad a tree should bear such "good fruit." From the par- 
tisan and sectarian verdict of such men as Alexander Camp- 
bell, of Bethany, and such preachers as Be v. B. S. Foster 
(whom you indorse), we appeal to the enlightened judgment of 
such acknowledged literary tribunals as "the British Encyclo- 
pedia," which contains the following, not written by a Calvin- 
ist : " There is one remark which we think ourselves in justice 
bound to make. It is this — that from the earliest age down 
to our own days, if we consider the character of the ancient 
Stoics, the Jewish Essenes, the modern Calvinists and Janse- 
nists, compared with that of their antagonists, the Epicureans, 
the Sadducees, the Arminians and the Jesuits, we shall find 
that they have excelled, in no small degree, in the practice of 
the most rigid and respectable virtues, and have been the 
highest honor to their own age, and the best models 
for imitation to every succeeding age." Such is the testimo- 
ny of an impartial witness, a first-rate scholar. 

Again : The " Edinburgh Review," which has not been 
suspected of a leaning toward Calvinism, says : " Who were 
the first formidable opponents of this doctrine (predestina- 
tion) in the Church of Rome ? The Jesuits, the contrivers of 
courtly casuistry, and the founders of lax morality. Who, in 
the same church, inclined to the theology of Augustine? 



Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 15 

The Jansenists, the teachers and the models of austere 
morals." 

Again : " It is a notorious and undeniable fact." remarks 
the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, " that wherever the doctrine 
and discipline of Calvin have existed and been allowed to 
operate, the people have been remarkable for an enlightened 
piety and the strictness of their moral conduct." 

To the same effect, hear one of your own most distinguish- 
ed ministers, Rev. Dr. Elliott, for several years editor of 
the " Western Christian Advocate :" — " The Presbyterians 
of every class," remarks Dr. E. " were prominent and even 
foremost, in achieving the liberties of the United States. 
They have been all along the leading supporters of constitu- 
tion and law, and good order. They have been the pioneers 
of learning and sound knowledge from the highest to the low- 
est grade, and are now its principal supporters. The cause 
of morals and good order has always found them the first 
TO aid, and among the last to retire from its support." 

" The Presbyterians," adds Dr. E. u are not confounded 
and never will be, so long as they adhere to the Bible and to 
the promotion of truth and righteousness, as they have al- 
ways done with more or less fidelity." " Many thousands of 
precious souls are annually brought to a saving knowledge of 
I Christ by their instrumentality." Will Bishop Simpson ven- 
i ture to affirm that these are the lawful results of a system of 
impious and licentious dogmas, such as he ascribes to Calvin- 
ists ? Did Dr. Elliott regard the Presbyterian church in the 
light in which she is depicted by Mr. Foster ? As well inquire 
whether " men gather grapes of thorns and figs of thistles." 
As well band with the infidel and deny the truth of the inspired 
maxim, "By their fruits ye shall know them." 

Such then are some of the benign " fruits" of a system of 
doctrine, the character of which is drawn in your leading 
tracts and other publications as follows: — "It makes 'all 
preaching vain ;' l it directly tends to destroy that holiness, 



16 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMLNIANISM. Let. I. 

which is the end of all the ordinances of God ;' it ' directly 
tends to destroy our zeal for good works ;' it has ' also a 
direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Chris- 
tian revelation f it represents our Saviour ' as a hypocrite, a 
deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity ;' it 
' destroys all God's attributes at once : it overturns both his 
justice, mercy and truth : yea, it represents the most holy 
God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel 
and more unjust/ as 'an omnipresent, almighty tyrant/ 
' This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible de- 
cree of predestination/ " 

" Ye shall know the truth," said our blessed Lord, " and 
the truth shall make you free." Commence the inquiry at 
any point you please. Go back to the days of the celebrated 
Augustine of the fourth century. To him Mosheim ascribes 
" the glory of having suppressed Pelagianism in its very 
birth." All acknowledge him to have been a Predestinarian 
of a high order. Did he hold " that the good and the bad 
actions of men were from eternity fixed by an invincible (or 
natural) necessity V No, he explicitly rejected, like modern 
Calvinists, such an impious dogma! Bishop S. cannot be 
ignorant of the history of the Waldenses and Albigenses, who 
in the retired fastnesses of the Alps, preserved the truth for so 
many ages safe from the corruptions of Rome. Yet they were 
Predestinarians. So were the leading Reformers of the six- 
teenth century — as the creeds which they prepared abundantly 
testify. Contrast, too, the Arminianism and morals of Laud 
and his semi-popish clergy, and of Claverhouse and his dragoons 
— with " the austere morality and the fear of God" which 
pervaded all ranks of the Covenanters, and also of the army 
of Cromwell — as Macaulay assures us. In that singular camp, 
the historian tells us, " no oath was heard, no drunkenness 
or gambling was seen, * * * the property of the peace- 
able citizen and the honor of woman were held sacred," &c. 
These were the fruits of Calvinism ! And the lives of such 



Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 17 

moderns as Thomas Scott, Legh Richmond, Bunyan, Ed- 
wards, Whitefield, and a host of other Calvinists, all testify 
that "a fountain that sends forth such streams of purity 
must be a pure fountain. " Even your own u Quarterly Re- 
view," in a very unfair and unfriendly notice of certain 
11 Lives of Calvin," admits that at Geneva " his practical dis- 
cipline was of the severest cast." And one of the proofs is, 
" dancing and other amusements were strictly prohibited."* 
Yet this same Quarterly, when it wishes to glorify a certain 
Arminian preacher, speaks of " his opposition to dancing" in 
a very commendatory tone If u Opposition to dancing" is 
good in an Arminian preacher, but hardly endurable in John 
Calvin ! Thus leaks out that harsh, intolerant, exclusive 
sectarism which lives and breathes throughout your church. 
This it is which prompts the extravagant eulogy of a certain 
Rev. Jesse Lee, who, as we are told by your highest authori- 
ties, near the close of the last century, abandoned " the scat- 
tered population of Virginia," " a country then very inade- 
quately supplied with the ordinances of religion" — for what 
purpose ? why, to carry the (Methodist) gospel to New Eng- 
land, "which had always," as your Quarterly admits, "been 
supplied with abundance of religious teachers," but where 
there were no Methodists ! Such is the Apostolic zeal of 
pure Arminianism ! No wonder that the same Quarterly 
elsewhere affirms, "that the spirit of sect, a spirit of early in- 
trusion, of facile growth and of late eradication, has without 
question been far too prevalent in our (Methodist) com- 
munion. "J Jesse Lee, in his benevolent mission to convert 
the adherents of the theology of Jonathan Edwards, Dwight, 
Rrainard and Payson, never uttered a more palpable truth 
than this of your " Quarterly I" No, not even when at the 
commencement of his "momentous message to New Eng- 
land," as your historian Stevens tells us,§ " he pronounced the 

* For October, 1850, p. 584. % For April, 1850, p. 188. 

f For January, 1850, p. 67. g Pago 41. 

2* 



18 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. L 

remonstrance of Methodism against such Puritan doctrines as 
1 infant damnation !' " Whether the spirit of Christ, or " the 
spirit of sect/' is the reigning impulse in such movements as 
this, let enlightened Christianity decide. The morals of the 
thing are patent to every discerning eye. 

In claiming " the Lutheran church" as " strictly agreeing 
with the Arminian view of Predestination," Bishop Simpson 
is not more successful. No Presbyterian would object to the 
following statements from Professor Schmucker's " Popular 
Theology i" " The purposes or intentions of G-od are of two 
kinds; either causative, which refer to his own intended ac- 
tions : or permissive, relating to those actions which he fore- 
sees that his creatures will perform, and which he resolves not 
to prevent." " These purposes of God, either causative or per- 
missive, do extend to all things." " What G-od thus intend- 
ed (or purposed) in eternity, he actually executes in time." 
u The Divine providence, i. e. the execution of God's eter- 
nal purposes or intentions, extends to all things." * 
This, of course, includes sin. No Presbyterian could ask a 
clearer statement of the doctrine of his Catechism — "the 
decrees of God are his eternal purpose, whereby for his own 
glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." Again : 
" This sin (of our first parents) God was pleased, according 
to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to 
order it to his own glory."f In like manner, Dr. John 
Owen, a Calvinist of the period of the Westminster Assem- 
bly, and one of the greatest authorities and advocates of Pre- 
destination : " The decree of reprobation is the eternal pur- 
pose of God to suffer (or permit) many to sin, to leave them 
in their sin, and not giving them to Christ, to punish them 
for their sin. "J And the Catechism : " Our first parents, 
being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate 
wherein they were created, by sinning against God." Q. 13. 
Yet this is the scheme of doctrine which Bishop Simpson 

* Popular Theology, p. 95. f Confession, p. 30. % Vol. 5, p. 14. 



Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 19 

tolls the public, denies "to the mind a power of choice" — de- 
nies " that the nature of its choice influences the soul's eter- 
nal happiness ! !" 

Neither will any sound Presbyterian object to Dr. 
Schmucker's views when he says — " The decrees of God rela- 
tive to the future destiny of men, were formed in view, that 
is, with a full knowledge of the conduct of men, * * * as is 
manifest from the absolute omniscience of G-od." "These 
decrees," he adds, " were formed in view (with a full know- 
ledge) of men's voluntary agency." So far as regards those 
who finally perish, our Confession expressly says, they are 
"passed by and ordained to wrath for their sin" — and, of 
course, it must have been " in view, or with full knowledge 
of their conduct," as Dr. Schmucker well expresses the truth. 
In regard to those who shall be saved, Dr. Schmucker says, 
" the decree of predestination to eternal life, is based on the 
foreseen voluntary conduct of the individuals." This expres- 
sion — "a decree based on voluntary conduct" — the Calvinist 
would not employ in reference to the finally saved. Yet per- 
haps even here, the difference is rather verbal than real ; for 
Dr. S. adds : " Our salvation is not of works, but of grace. 
Yes, humble Christian ! Thy works shall follow thee, not as 
a ground of justification, or as satisfaction to the demands of 
the violated law; for Christ and his merits are the only 
basis OP our hope, the only satisfaction for sin. * * * 
But the works of the believer shall be the measure of his fu- 
ture gracious reward j" i. e. " we shall be rewarded accord- 
ing to our works."* It will be seen, therefore, that Dr. S. 
admits the true and only scriptural "ground" on which 
" eternal life" is based. Of course, " the decree" to bestow 
salvation agrees with the truth of the case, i. e. it is founded 
on the " only basis of our hope" in " Christ and his merits;" 
not on " foreseen voluntary conduct." This agrees with Cal- 
vinism, and the difference on this point seems to be merely 
* Popular Theology, pp. 100, 108. 



20 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. 

verbal, Hence there appears no very strong family likeness 
between the Lutheran theology and the system of Episcopal 
Methodism. Besides, Professor S. affirms that the Holy 
Spirit " produces faith" — " that what he does in time, he 
eternally intended or purposed to do" — which is the doctrine 
of Paul, viz. " Grod hath from the beginning chosen you to 
salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of 
the truth." 2 Thess. 2 : 13. 

I anticipate the following objection to much that is said in 
these Letters : " The system here expounded is not the Cal- 
vinism of its original teacher. Surely John Calvin was a Oal- 
vinist." I reply : 

1. The Presbyterian church has never held herself re- 
sponsible for some of the doctrines taught by the illustrious 
Calvin. It is true her " Board of Publication" have issued 
" the Institutes." But mark ! It is with several express qual- 
ifications. " Considering the circumstances in which they 
were written" they say, " the Institutes form an invaluable 
body of divinity." "Yet some of the expressions of Calvin 
on the subject of Reprobation may be regarded as too un- 
qualified, and we can no further indorse them than as they 
are incorporated in the Presbyterian Confession." u And it 
must be acknowledged that some of the doctrines therein main- 
tained, have been more luminously set forth in modern 
times." Here there is an express disavowal of some of Cal- 
vin's sentiments in regard to Reprobation. 

2. In the book of Mr. Foster, which you and your church 
have indorsed, great injustice is done to Presbyterians. You 
cannot be ignorant of the familiar distinction of Supralapsa- 
rian and Sublapsarian among those who are in common 
called Calvinists. This distinction had its origin in a 
difference of views in regard to the Divine purposes, and 
the doctrine of election. Calvin, Beza, Witsius, and some 
others, were most probably Supralapsarians. The Presbyte- 
rian church, on the contrary, are to a man Sublapsarian. 



Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 21 

To charge upon Dr. Rice and other Presbyterians, as you have 
done, the ultra Calvinism of the Supralapsarians, is about 
as fair as though we should hold you responsible for the low 
Arminianism of Whitby and Taylor of Norwich ! These 
men boasted of their Arminianism ) but we should be sorry 
to suppose that your church is prepared to acknowledge any 
affinity with their gross errors. And in reference to what is 
now called Arminianism in this country, it was well remarked 
by the late Professor Stuart, of Andover, " that Arminius 
himself teas no Arminian."* 

3. Similar injustice is done to our church, when in "the 
Objections to Calvinism/' you group together detached para- 
graphs and sentences from high Supralapsarian Calvinists, 
combined with fragments torn from the writings of Hill, 
Chalmers, Edwards and others. How easy in this way to 
convict Paul of denying the necessity of repentance ; for he 
says, " the gifts and calling of God are without repentance /" 
How obvious that he advocated licentiousness ; for he says, 
"I thank God that ye were the servants of sin!" And the 
Psalmist can in this way be shown to have been an Atheist ; 
for, " there is no God !" Ps. 14. 

To prove the correctness of this representation, we cite 
one or two examples. The first is a quotation on page 23 of 
"the Objections to Calvinism," from the Institutes, vol. ii. 
p. 171. " I shall not hesitate to confess with Augustine, that 
the will of God is the necessity of things, and that what he 
has willed will necessarily come to pass." But did not Mr. 
Foster perceive that this was not the end of the sentence ? 
Calvin adds, in explanation of the term "necessity," "as those 
things are really about to happen which he has foreseen." 
And ten lines farther down he says : " Their perdition depends 
on the Divine predestination in such a manner, that the cause 
and matter of it are from themselves." Again, six lines far- 
ther : " Man falls according to the appointment of Divine 
* Biblical Repository, April, 1831. 



22 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. L 

Providence ; but be falls by his own fault" — " by bis own 
wickedness, * * * whicb is tbe evident cause of con- 
demnation ;" * * * " tbe ground of it (bis misery) be 
bas derived from himself not from GrOD." Sucb is a spe- 
cimen of your demonstrative proofs tbat Calvinists make 
" G-od tbe originator and cause of sin" — " tbat Gi-od decreed 
all the sins of all men" — and " tbat tbe decree and tbing de- 
creed stand related as cause and effect."* Sucb is a 
specimen of Bisbop Simpson's "strict logic." Tbus Mr. 
Foster and be bave made "tbis doctrine (Calvinism) to 
vanish with its foundations, wbicb (tbey say,) bave been 
demonstrated to be false."f 

Another illustration of tbese Arminian " demonstrations." 
You refer (p. 26) to tbe Institutes, vol. i. p. 194, as follows : 
" It should be considered as indubitably certain tbat all the 
revolutions visible in tbe world proceed from the secret exer- 
tion of Divine power. What Grod decrees must necessarily 
come to pass." Thus ends your extract. But this is not 
the close of Calvin's sentence ; for he instantly adds, " yet 
it is not by absolute or natural necessity." He then cites 
"the familiar example" of the "bones of Christ," whicb 
were capable of " being broken," " yet that they should be 
broken was impossible;" because tbe Scripture must cer- 
tainly be fulfilled, " a bone of him shall not be broken." 
It seems tbat prophecy gives rise to necessity as understood 
by Calvin.J Sucb is another of Bishop Simpson's " strictly 
logical" demonstrations, that according to Calvinism, " God 
causes men to rob, murder, blaspheme, &c. !" 

Without multiplying these humiliating examples of unfair 
quotation, we only add the closing sentence of the Bishop's 
"Introduction:" "We doubt not," be says, "that many, 
after perusing these pages (" Objections to Calvinism"), will 
fully acquiesce with Calvin, in terming, as he did, the decree 

* Objections, &o. pp. 31, 32. f Ibid, p. 198. 

{ For other illustrations of his meaning, see Appendix to this volume. 



Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 23 

of Predestination a i horrible decree/ " But that this 
statement in regard to Calvin's meaning is contrary to truth, 
is obvious for several reasons : 

(1.) Calvin never represented the Divine decree as "hor- 
rible" in the common acceptation of that term. Hence, 
when Mr. Foster refers to the same sentiment, on page 70 of 
the " Objections," he has it as follows : " It is an awful de- 
cree, I must confess." Thus we have Foster versus Simpson, 
preacher against bishop ! "Which of them is the more cor- 
rect, the public must decide. Every tyro knows that the 
Latin term horribile often means " awful," as Mr. F. gives it. 

(2.) Mr. Foster's translation is that of Allen, which is 
generally received as reliable. But the Bishop follows Wes- 
ley and other partisan controvertists, who " have no greater 
joy" than to heap abuse upon Calvin ! 

(3.) The distinguished Dr. Henry, of Berlin, in his cele- 
brated " Life and Times of Calvin," translates horribile de- 
cretum — " terror-moving decree," and says the passage " does 
honor to his (Calvin's) feelings." He also quotes a French 
author (Ancillon, Melanges Critiques, p. 37,) as affirming 
that instead of " describing God's decrees as horrible, Calvin 
simply meant that we ought to tremble at contemplating this 
mystery." And he adds, " so he (Calvin) himself expresses 
it in the French version of the Institutes." Henry also re- 
fers to Kivet as " saying the same thing" 

(4.) And to crown all this evidence against Bishop Simp- 
son, let it be remembered that it is a question of fact. Did 
Calvin really intend by the phrase, " horribile decretum," 
to reproach Predestination, or the doctrine of Divine decrees, 
asa" horrible" doctrine, implying the ideas conveyed by the 
terms shocking, hideous, revolting, odious ? Let Calvin an- 
swer for himself. Thus Book 3, chap. xxi. sec. 1 : " We 
shall never be clearly convinced as we ought to be, that our 
salvation flows from the fountain of God's free mercy, till we 
are acquainted with his eternal election, which illustrates the 



24 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. 

grace of God," &c. " Ignorance of this principle evidently 
detracts from the Divine glory, and diminishes real humility." 
Again he speaks of Predestination as " the inmost recesses of 
Divine wisdom/' and as "that sublimity of wisdom which 
God would have us to adore, and not to comprehend, to pro- 
mote our admiration of his glory." " He determined thus, 
because he foresaw it would tend to the just illustration of 
the glory of his name." To say that Calvin represented the 
decree of God as " horrible," is contrary to these uniform 
declarations, is to represent him as falling under his own 
solemn rebuke, Book 3, chap. xxi. sec. 4, " whoever endeav- 
ors to raise prejudices against the doctrine of Predestination, 
openly reproaches God," &c. In the light of these and many 
other passages, is it not wonderful that Bishop Simpson 
should revive this stale and ridiculous story about the " hor- 
rible decree ;" and which has been long since exploded ? 
Even John Wesley admits that Calvin was " a wise, pious 
man." But if so, how could he have reproached his Maker 
as revealing a doctrine which is " horrible ?" A doctrine, 
too, which he himself held and taught as scriptural ! 

To follow Messrs. Foster and Simpson in this way through 
all their professed quotations, and expose them in detail, 
would of course require a large volume. If a certain heathen 
god could be known by his foot, so may Arminianism be 
tested by these specimens of its " logical argumentation." 
Besides, many of the professed extracts are shielded from 
investigation by defective reference. Thus to a number of 
the most objectionable we find appended, "Hill," "Calvin," 
"Witsius," "Zanchius," &c. But Calvin's works are con- 
tained in twelve large folio volumes, and those of Witsius in 
nearly the same number ! In the same manner they refer to 
" Presbyterian Tracts," which are bound in ten volumes, con- 
taining more than four thousand pages, and to "Dick," 
" Edwards," " Chalmers," and others. No rational person 
will expect us to look through some fifty or a hundred large 
volumes on such an errand as this ! 



Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 25 

We are told in these "Objections to Calvinism/' " that the 
book had its origin in the fact that the M. E. church had 
been long and grievously assailed by one of the organs " of 
the Presbyterian church ; and " by an accredited champion 
(Dr. Rice), at a time when peace and Christian union had 
long existed." Thus u truth and religion required it !" Of 
course Dr. Rice's "unprovoked intermeddling" rendered it 
necessary (for Messrs. Foster and Simpson) " to uncover the 
revolting and shameful deformities " of Presby terianisin.* But 
in reply, Dr. Rice assures us that " the unprovoked intermed- 
dling" in the particular case referred to, came from the 
Methodist organ, the " Western Christian Advocate," which 
published an article on i Church Membership/ containing 
incorrect and offensive statements respecting the Presbyterian 
church." Here was the " intermeddling," and it was all on 
the Arminian side ! 

Again : Without referring to these more recent assaults 
from that quarter, we have had in our possession for more 
than twenty-five years, the books and tracts published by the 
highest authorities of your church on this subject, widely 
circulated, injurious to the moral character of the Presbyte- 
rian ministry, and designed to bring disgrace upon her 
doctrines and cherished usages. From one of these publica- 
tions,")" we make the following extracts. In speaking of the 
Congregationalists and Presbyterians, they say : " For several 
years the public have been entertained with pitiful complaints 
against the Arminians and Methodists, for misrepresenting their 
doctrine, and charging them with principles of fatality, repro- 
bation, &c. all which they have gravely affected to deny. And 
that they may lull the people into favor y they have dwelt with 
seeming earnestness on the general invitations of the gospel, 
free agency in man, and universal atonement of Christ ; hut 
with all their ingenuity they have not been able to conceal from 

* Soe " Objections," pp. 13, 138, Ac. 
f Soo tract, " Duplicity Exposed." 



26 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. 

the well informed, the cloven foot of their peculiar tenets, un- 
conditional election and reprobation." — pp. 1, 2. 

Again : " Notwithstanding the pitiful whining about their 
being misrepresented, they are as high-toned Predestinarians 
at this day as ever they were." " We say," continues the 
tract, " they believe the doctrine of eternal and unchangeable 
decrees, of unconditional election and reprobation, of the uni- 
versal agency of God, by which he worketh all things in all 
men, even wickedness in the wicked" — u because he chooses on 
the whole that they should go on in sin, and thereby give 
him a plausible pretext for dam,ning them in the flames of 
hell forever" " We do not mean to blame any person for 
believing the above stated doctrine, if they cannot conscien- 
tiously disbelieve it ; but we do and must blame them, when 
they dissemble their belief by sometimes saying they do not 
believe what we know they industriously teach." — pp. 8, 9. 

Again they say : "The object of this tract is not to con- 
trovert or disprove the horrid sentiments it discloses, but 
simply to demonstrate that such sentiments are held and 
propagated, while many who affect to disavow them, are en- 
deavoring to suit them to the popular taste by exhibiting 
them in a disguising dress. We blame not people who honestly 
believe, but we blame those who disbelieve what they openly 
profess and teach" — pp. 9, 10. 

The substance of these quotations may be collected at one 
view from such passages as the following : " To dissemble with 
the public, by artifice conceal our real sentiments, professing 
one thing while we industriously circulate another;" " that 
they may lull the people into favor, they have dwelt with seem- 
ing, earnestness" — " dissemble their belief" — "disbelieving 
what they profess and teach," &c. &c. 

It would be easy to fill pages with similar deliverances 
extracted from your standard publications. These declara- 
tions will serve to qualify sucji brotherly expressions as the 
following, on pages 15, 138, of your " Objections : " " Toward 



Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 27 

the Presbyterian church I have cherished sentiments of the 
profoundest attachment from my early boyhood. * * These 
sentiments remain to this hour." "I must be allowed to 
cherish love for your church." " Would that you had been 
content to enjoy peace, and left your neighbors to pursue their 
own vocation," &c. 

Such then is the neighborly love of these Arminian breth- 
ren. If their statements were generally believed, the effect 
must be to degrade us from our ministerial standing, as 
unworthy of countenance among all honorable and righteous 
men. Not content with endeavoring to show that our system 
of doctrine legitimately leads to certain impious consequences, 
they publish us from Dan to Beersheba, as guilty of deliberate 
and designed dishonesty, because we are not willing to think 
with them in this matter, but refuse to adopt a thousand 
impieties of the Arminian brain. 

" If these charges are not true," said a preacher to some 
Presbyterians, " why are they not contradicted and refuted V 
We have been driven, therefore, to the unpleasant alternative, 
either of standing before the public as confounded by a sense 
of guilt, our forbearance construed to our disadvantage, and 
our love of peace made a pretext for more violent assault ; or 
of taking up the pen to assert and prove our innocence, and 
to direct the course of public justice, so as to strike those who 
are really guilty. The interests of truth will not permit us 
to be silent. To ourselves, our children, and the church of 
God, we owe it, to let the truth be known. And if in de- 
fending the precious cause of our Master, and vindicating our 
good name, we are compelled to publish some things which 
seem to bear heavily upon those whom we wish to call Chris- 
tians, we appeal to the candor of every reader, to say, where 
must rest the responsibility. 



28 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. 



LETTER II. 

ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH SIN.— ARMINIAN CONTRADICTIONS 
AND INCOHERENCES. 

Rev. Sir — In order fully to comprehend the nature and 
excellence of the gospel method of salvation, it is obviously 
proper, in the first place, to examine minutely the moral dis- 
ease of which it is the Divinely appointed remedy. I ask, 
therefore, your close attention, whilst we proceed to test by 
Scripture and reason, the views of Arminians upon the great 
cardinal doctrine of Original Sin, or as your Discipline terms 
it, " birth sin." 

Among the Articles of Religion published for the Methodist 
Episcopal church, and (along with the Discipline,) recom- 
mended to all their people, " next to the Word of God/' the 
7th is in the following terms : 

" Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as 
the Pelagians vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the 
nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the off- 
spring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original 
righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and 
that continually." 

This article, as expounded by one of your leading authori- 
ties, describes " the lapsed condition into which the first act 
of disobedience plunged the first pair and their whole posteri- 
ty," and "the death threatened to Adam" and "his whole pos- 
terity," is admitted to be " the fullness of death," or " death 
temporal, spiritual and eternal."* The article is essentially 
Calvinistic so far as it goes, though defective in some particu- 
lars. But the great matter of surprise is, that such correct 
and scriptural views of man's fall and its far-reaching results, 
have been incorporated in a system otherwise Arminian. 
That such an attempt to mingle "iron and clay" in the same 
* Watson's Institutes, chap. 18, pp. 226, 241. 



Let. II. ORIGINAL SIN. 29 

doctrinal structure, involves you in the strangest incoheren- 
ces and contradictions, we purpose to show as we proceed. 
Indeed the utter impossibility of reconciling these sound 
Calvinistic views of " birth sin " with other essential features 
of the Arminian scheme, was felt by its original advocates. 
" These early defenders of that scheme, came out boldly and 
fearlessly with their doctrine." Whatever else they were, 
they were men of discernment, sufficient at least to perceive 
the absolute incongruity of the fundamental principles of Cal- 
vinism and Arminianism, and the utter futility of the attempt 
to interweave light with darkness, as your system does. Such 
logical reasoners as Borrseus, Corvinus, Venator, and the 
older remonstrants, could never be brought to undertake so 
fruitless a labor. Take a few examples : " It is perversely 
said that Original Sin makes any one guilty of death." 
"That which we have by birth (" birth sin") can be no evi't 
of sin, because to be born is plainly involuntary." "Original 
Sin is neither a sin properly so called, which should make 
the posterity of Adam guilty of God's wrath ) nor yet is it a 
punishment of any sin on them." "It is against equity that 
one should be accounted guilty of a sin that is not his own, 
* * * who in regard of his own will is truly innocent." 
"Infants are simply in that estate in which Adam was before 
his fall." "Adam sinned in his own proper person only, and 
there is no reason why Grod should impute that sin unto 
infants."* Such are a few of the doctrinal extremes to which 
the early Arminians logically pushed their system. If Bishop 
S. and his brethren of the present day, profess to repudiate 
such results, we should be sorry to put a harsh construction 
upon their conduct. It is not the prerogative of any man to 
judge the motives of his neighbor. We do not allege, there- 
fore, "that the old forms of the Arminian system are so 
repulsive the people will not receive them, * * and modern 

* See Dr. John Owen's •' Display of Arminianism," where the quotations 
are given in the original Latin. 

3* 



30 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. 

Methodists have assumed new positions, not only to conceal 
their doctrine, but if possible to defend it."* Far be it from 
us to accuse our Arminian brethren with " disingenuousness 
and cowardice, if not with downright duplicity, for thus shun- 
ning and covering up the more repulsive features of their 
system/'* Their error, we would fain hope, belongs rather 
to the head than the heart. " If any man," remarked the 
eloquent Baptist, Robert Hall, " says he is an Arminian, the 
inference is that he is not a good logician." 

The great inconsistency of this attempt to patch Arminian- 
ism with shreds of Calvinistic doctrine, has been also felt by 
some of the more modern anti-Calvinists. Whitby, who is 
one of Mr. Foster's authorities against us, speaks contemptu- 
ously of " G-od's imaginary compact with Adam, that if he 
prevaricated, he should procure not only to himself but to all 
his posterity, the death both of the body and soul." " This," 
he says, " manifestly contradicts the express word of G-od."f 
And he talks of "the forged compact between God and 
Adam, to justify this imputation of his sin to his posterity." 
So also Dr. John Taylor, of Norwich, who is favorably noticed 
and quoted by Dr. Clarke, in some of his expositions of the 
Epistle to the Romans, maintains that the death which entered 
by sin of "one man" (Rom. 5 : 12), is no more than that which 
we all die when the body returns to dust ;" and he argues at 
length to prove that death and affliction come on Adam's poster- 
ity, not as a punishment or calamity, but as a benefit, especially 
as connected with the resurrection. | But how the " resur- 
rection to damnation," which comes to the wicked, can be re- 
garded as a benefit or u advantage furnished through grace 
in Christ," is not easily understood. Both Taylor and Whit- 

* The language here used is quoted from Dr. Fisk's " Discourse on Pre- 
destination," published by the General Conference, through their Book Con- 
cern. It is directed against Calvinists. pp. 34, 35, 36 

f Discourses on the Five Points, pp. 7, 8. 

% For the extracts which prove these statements, see Edwards on Original 
Sin, ch. 1, 4. 



Let. II. ORIGINAL SIN. 31 

by stand high among the assailants of Calvinism ; and the 
" Discourses on the Five Points" have often furnished wea- 
pons to the enemies of that system. They are sad illustra- 
tions of the facility with which consistent logical Arminian- 
ism finds "a lower deep" in blank Pelagianism, leading to 
such results as " that the consequences, guilt and corruption 
of Adam's sin were confined to his own person — that new- 
born infants are in the same situation with Adam before the 
fall," &c. How close to this dark gulf of error, the leading 
Methodist brethren verge in their attempts to harmonize their 
conflicting sentiments, will appear in the sequel. With such 
facts before us, we proceed to examine the Difficulties of the 
Arminian scheme. 

I. The Difficulties of Arminian Methodism in refer- 
ence to the Doctrine of Original Sin. — The con- 
fused, INCOHERENT, AND CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS 
MADE UPON THIS SUBJECT. 

1. " The corruption of nature" taught in the article above 
quoted, into which Adam's sin " plunged all his posterity," 
and by which " man is inclined to evil and that continu- 
ally," is manifestly the fountain whence flows all actual sin, 
the root of all bitterness, an evil of fearful magnitude, a curse 
of tremendous extent. Who then is the guilty author of this 
dread calamity, by which corruption, and misery, and death, 
are handed down from generation to generation ? Is it the 
infant or the parent ? Must we trace it back to Adam, the 
primitive ancestor of the race ; or must we impute it to the 
Creator himself? In answer to these questions, the Method- 
ist Standard of doctrine says not a word ; and the members 
and ministers are left to believe and teach, upon this subject, 
whatever is right in their own eyes. Men may adopt their 
Articles and Discipline, and yet maintain that Grod is the 
author of sin, the originating cause of that " corruption of 
nature" by which " man is inclined to evil and that continu- 



32 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. 

ally," and thus the author of all sin. This, their religious 
teachers may hold and inculcate, and yet, so far as appears, 
joe good Methodists. The whole subject is submitted to the 
freak, or fancy, or frenzy, of each individual, whether preacher 
or ordinary member. 

Now, it is well known to be a favorite topic of declamation, 
among these opposers of Presbyterianism, that our system 
leads inevitably to the adoption of the forementioned mon- 
strous doctrine of the origin of sin. Long, and loud, and oft 
repeated, are their asseverations to this effect ; and they do 
not hesitate, as we have seen, to charge us, who reject the 
thought with abhorrence, as guilty of a want of candor, or 
something worse. But what says the Confession of Faith of 
the Presbyterian church upon the subject of the author of 
sin ? " The sinfulness thereof (viz. of sinful actions) pro- 
ceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who being 
most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or 
approver of sin." Ch. 5. sec. 4. And this, be it remembered, 
is a declaration, to which all Presbyterian ministers and elders, 
at their ordination, solemnly give their assent and approbation. 
A man may be a good preacher of Methodism — he will resist 
no regulation among men, nor violate any ministerial oath, 
who holds and teaches that God is the author of sin ) but the 
fundamental principles of the Presbyterian church for ever 
forbid to such a person an entrance into her ministry or eld- 
ership, under the penalty of a conscience perjured before 
earth and heaven. 

Again : the " corruption of nature " taught by the Article 
is necessary and unavoidable. Man brings it into the world 
with him; and he can no more avoid being the child of sin- 
ful parents, and of course, the child of a corruption by which 
"he is inclined to continual evil/' than he can determine the 
time and place of his birth. He is therefore necessarily and 
unavoidably, " without any preceding fault or offense of his," 
"very far gone from original righteousness, and inclined to 



Let. II. ORIGINAL SIN. 33 

evil and that continually." But Dr. "W. Fisk, speaking as 
the organ of the General Conference, tells us, " that if God 
holds men responsible for what is unavoidable, nothing more 
could be said of the most merciless tyrant." (Disc, on Predes. 
p. 13.) It follows, therefore, that though " man is inclined 
to evil and that continually," yet he is not " responsible" for 
this wickedness, because it is unavoidable ; in other words, 
" Original Sin" is no sin, but a very innocent, harmless thing, 
which none but a " merciless tyrant" would ever consider 
deserving of punishment ! 

Nevertheless, Dr. Fisk further assures us (p. 30,) that "all 
depravity, whether derived or contracted, is damning in its 
nature." Here we are back on the old ground : Original Sin 
is unavoidable, therefore it is no sin ; but still it is " dam- 
ning in its nature !" How is this ? The Doctor will tell us : 
" Guilt is not imputed, until by a voluntary rejection of the 
gospel remedy, man makes the depravity of his nature the 
object of his choice." " By a voluntary rejection of the gos- 
pel remedy." But, Rev. Doctor, does not your seventh Ar- 
ticle teach "a corruption of nature, by which man is inclined 
to evil and that continually ?" And if he be inclined to con- 
tinual evil, then is he inclined to this very evil of rejecting 
the gospel remedy. It is idle, therefore, on your own princi- 
ples, to talk of a voluntary (or sinful) rejection of the gospel 
remedy, when man is necessarily and unavoidably inclined 
to reject it. Of course, it can be no sin to reject it; and God 
would be a " merciless tyrant" to "impute guilt" for rejecting 
the remedy. How then can a depravity which none can avoid, 
which none but " merciless tyranny " could regard as deserv- 
ing of punishment, be said to be " damning in its nature ?" 

In reply to this reasoning, a writer in defense of Dr. Fisk, 
whilst admitting that man is by " nature inclined to evil con- 
tinually," asserting, too, that this u destroys the freedom of 
his will," and that it would be mockery for the Divine Being 
to set before him life and death, and invite him to choose 



34 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. 

life, " when he was morally incapable of such a choice ;" yet 
thinks he relieves the subject of the difficulty, by stating that 
" Dr. F. assumes man as graciously assisted to make a volun- 
tary choice." In other words, man is by birth the heir of a 
depravity which " unavoidably inclines him to continual 
evil." It follows, therefore, according to Dr. F. that he has 
no power of voluntary choice, and is not a free moral agent, 
until "graciously assisted" and made capable of voluntary 
choice ; and thus, the Dr. continues, " through the grace of 
the gospel, all are born free from condemnation." p. 30. 
Which is about the same as to say, that man is enabled " by 
grace" to escape a condemnation which, being previously 
unavoidable, it would have been merciless tyranny to execute. 
A wondrous act of grace, truly, to assist the sinner to avoid 
a punishment which none but a tyrant could inflict ! A 
strange idea of the grace of the gospel, that it comes in to 
render men capable of sinning, deserving of punishment for 
their sin, and liable to a " condemnation" which, but for this 
grace, a righteous G-od could not justly execute upon any de- 
scendant of the apostate pair ! 

2. The article quoted above, as expounded by leading Ar- 
minian authors, makes G-od the author of all sin, except that 
which produced the fall. Let us look at this subject : 

The providential arrangement, agreeably to which " the 
first sin plunged all Adam's posterity in corruption and 
death," as Watson abundantly proves, was obviously not the 
natural constitution which now prevails between the father 
and child. No such dreadful and wide-spread consequences 
now attend the parental relation. Of course, the original 
constitution which secured such fatal results must have been 
peculiar, extraordinary, supernatural ) in other words, it was 
a special "covenant" made and appointed by the God of 
providence, for the special circumstances of our first parents. 
This is not denied by Watson, who quotes approvingly the 
following statements of Arminius : 



Let. II. ORIGINAL SIN. 35 

u The tenor of the covenant into which God entered with 
our first parents was this — that if they continued in the fa- 
vor and grace of Grod by the observance of that precept (viz. 
1 thou shalt not eat of it/ &c.) and others, the gifts which had 
been conferred upon them should be transmitted to their pos- 
terity « * * * ^t that if they should render themselves 
unworthy through disobedience, their posterity should like- 
wise be deprived of those favors; * * * hence it fol- 
lowed, that all men who were to be naturally propagated from 
them, have become obnoxious to death temporal and eternal, 
and have been destitute of that gift of the Holy Spirit or of 
original righteousness. This punishment is usually called a 
privation of the image of Grod and original sra."* 

This is clear and explicit. Will Bishop Simpson and 
other Arminians look at it for a few moments. Here was 
a " Covenant," or Divine Constitution, made with our first 
parents. Of course, Grod was its Author. It was extraor- 
dinary and supernatural, and the results which were to follow 
in the course of Providence, were of Divine origin and 
appointment. In virtue of this Divine ordination, " fallen 
man, including all his posterity," were plunged into a state 
of corruption and misery, became, " inclined to evil, and that 
continually," inherit a corrupt nature or spiritual death, and 
" are born liable not only to bodily death, a part of the penalty, 
but that is sufficient to show," says Watson, " that they are born 
under THE WHOLE MALEDICTION."-)* Such, Bishop S. is the 
arrangement under which, by Divine appointment, all men are 
born! Such, " the punishment" which Grod appoints for all 
men, including infants of every age ! In the language of your 
favorite, Foster, we ask, " How came these miserable crea- 
tures in their condition of sin and wretchedness ? You must 
answer, They were put there by the decree or appointment 
of Grod."J And this " whole malediction," viz. " death — 

* Institutes, vol. ii. p. 78. f Watson's Inst. vol. ii. p. 58. 

\ Objections to Calvinism, p. 8S. 



36 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. 

temporal, spiritual, and eternal," (Watson, chap. 18) — this 
"punishment of the privation of the image of God" (Ar- 
minius and Watson,) is necessary and unavoidable by any 
child of Adam ! If the worthy Bishop and his favorite 
Foster, will open almost any page of their " Objections to 
Calvinism," their eye will quickly light upon an epithet of 
sufficient horror for a case of this sort ! So true is it, that 
our Arminian brethren have fallen into the pit which they 
had dug for their Calvinistic neighbors ! Thus they repre- 
sent the all-merciful Creator as the author of all the most 
malignant forms of sin, and of the dreadful sufferings which 
flow from it. 

3. Leaving Bishop S. and his Arminian brethren to choose 
between the sentiment of Dr. Fisk, viz. that, " through the 
grace of the Gospel all are born free from condemnation/' 
and the opposite sentiment of Watson, viz. that "all are 
born under the whole malediction," — both which contradictory 
statements are published in the accredited writings of the 
General Conference; let us look a little further into this 
curious scheme of Arminianism. 

" The whole malediction," " the punishment under which 
all are born/' as Arminius and Watson affirm, is represented 
as falling upon creatures who are perfectly guiltless ! To 
substantiate this statement, let Bishop S. open Mr. Foster's 
book, which he so highly applauds : " The doctrine," (of Cal- 
vinism,) he says, "is, that mankind were viewed as fallen 
in Adam, and all of them under condemnation and deserving 
of death." " But, if it be said the wrong is not in their 
remaining unregenerate, but in their being so in the first 
instance, I reply, neither are they to blame for this, because 
it was entirely without their consent. They were born corrupt, 
and so cannot be guilty for this." * But if these conclusions 
be just, these Arminian Doctors should immediately propose 

* Objections to Calvinism, pp. 90, 166. Much more of the same sort is 
found in the book. 



Let. II. ORIGINAL SIN. 37 

an alteration in the title of their seventh Article. Instead 
of " Original or Birth Sin," it should read, " Original or 
Birth Misfortune I " There is obviously no sin in the case. 
In like manner, the " Methodist Magazine,"* in reviewing 
this work in a former edition, remarks as follows : " To us 
it is as manifest as the meridian light, that to suffer the tem- 
poral consequences (viz. of " the original offense/') is one 
thing, and to lie under the guilt of the first offense so as to 
be liable to eternal punishment, is quite another." Again, 
ff the offspring of our original ancestors may be unavoidably 
involved in the consequences of their original offense, without 
being consequently and necessarily involved in the guilt of 
their original act." Here it is asserted that all the offspring 
of Adam are involved in " the temporal consequences " of 
his first sin, viz . " death — temporal and spiritual," as Watson 
states them — but without lying under the guilt of that or 
any other offense. In other words, all men inherit, unavoid- 
ably, original or birth sin — are " inclined to evil, and that 
continually," and suffer death; but, still, this "punishment" 
falls upon those who are not " involved in guilt," i. e. though 
guiltless of sin, either original or actual, they are compelled 
to suffer such dreadful " punishment ! " But, what is guilt ? 
It has been well defined to be " the state of any being justly 
charged with crime." It follows that these great and una- 
voidable evils, viz. "death — temporal and spiritual," are 
inflicted as a "punishment" upon persons ''justly chargeable 
with no crime," for they are without guilt. And all these 
forms of "the malediction " are "transmitted to Adam's 
posterity," as the necessary and unavoidable fruits of that 
original " covenant," of which God was the author, as both 
Arminius and Watson affirm. Thus, this Arminian cove- 
nant inflicts dreadful penalties upon the guiltless — even upon 
helpless infants. And they are unavoidable as the time and 
place of their birth. 

* For July, 1839. 

4 



38 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. 

But while the " Methodist Magazine " teaches that " the 
offspring of Adam are unavoidably involved in the temporal 
consequences of the first sin, without being involved in its 
guilt," as just stated, the reviewer shrinks with horror 
from the thought that " one man or a single child of our 
fallen race " " is liable to eternal punishment on its account." 
And to say that one such person " ever finally perished, 
merely through the imputation of Adam's sin," he denounces 
as u a blasphemous imputation on the character of God." 
But, here is a confounding of two things essentially distinct 
— to be " liable to eternal punishment," is one thing, and to 
" finally perish " is an entirely different thing. The liability 
" merely through Adam's sin," Calvinists maintain ; but "the 
final perdition " of any soul for the same cause alone, is no part 
of our creed. Besides, the reviewer here comes in direct 
conflict with the ablest standard writer in the Arminian 
ranks. Mr. Watson reasons conclusively as follows : " The 
justice of this (viz. " eternal death from the federal charac- 
ter of Adam,") is objected to; but it is sufficient to say, that 
if the making the descendants of Adam liable to eternal 
death because of his offense be unjust, the infliction of tem- 
poral death is so also; the duration of the punishment 
making no difference in the simple question of justice. If 
punishment," he adds, " whether of loss or of pain, be unjust, 
its measure and duration may be a greater or less injustice, 
but it is unjust in every degree."* This reasoning is per- 
fectly conclusive, and places the reviewer in a bad pre- 
dicament. If "liability to eternal death" on account of 
Adam's sin, be unjust, so, reasons Watson, must be " the 
infliction of temporal death on the same account." Now, 
as the reviewer maintains the latter, i. e. u the infliction 
of temporal death," he must necessarily admit the former, 
viz. " liability to eternal death." " The fact," says Watson, 
" of infants being born liable to temporal death, a part of 

* Institutes, vol. ii. pp. 55, 56. 



Let. II. ORIGINAL SIN. 89 

the penalty, is sufficient to show that they are horn under 
the whole malediction/' viz. "death — temporal, spiritual 
and eternal." Thus, as he well reasons, by admitting the 
justice of temporal death, " we are in precisely the same 
difficulty as when the legal result is extended farther," viz. 
so as to include "liability to eternal death." Yet, of these 
same children of Adam, Bishop S. and Mr. Foster say : 
" They were born corrupt, and so cannot be guilty for this." 
So that " the whole malediction " rests upon the guiltless I 
Such are some of the confused, incoherent and contradictory 
statements put forth by these Arminian brethren. Such, a 
few of the curious logical results of this attempt to interline 
the Arminian scheme with scraps of Calvinism ! The best 
method of escape from this entanglement, is to say, with 
some earlier Arminians, "That which we have by birth, 
(" birth sin,") can be no evil of sin," &c. " Infants are sim- 
ply in that estate in which Adam was before the fall." Or, 
take the Pelagian ground, "Adam's sin hurt no one but him- 
self ! " " And death is threatened as a benefit to mankind ! " 
It is needless to enlarge further upon the proofs of this sin- 
gular feature of the Arminian scheme, viz. punishment 
without guilt. We must not omit, however, one other ex- 
tract, which we take from Dr. Fisk, the ablest American 
writer on the subject, as follows : " Guilt is not imputed 
(" to man born depraved,") until, by a voluntary rejection 
of the gospel remedy, he makes the depravity of his 
nature the object of his choice." * But, if this be true ; 
if "guilt is not imputed" to children until they be- 
come old enough to choose or refuse "the gospel rem- 
edy," why do they suffer the penalty of "temporal 
death?" Why are they subject to the "privation of the 
image of God," as Arminius assures us, and which he terms 
"a punishment?" If "guilt is not imputed to them," how 

* " Discourse on Predestination and Election/' p. 30, Meth. Tract, 
No. 131. 



40 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. 

can they be " born under the whole malediction," as Watson 
affirms. Did David teach this doctrine : " Behold ! I was 
shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me ? " 
Did Paul teach that men are born guiltless ? Of Christians 
of his day, he says : " We all were, by nature, children of 
wrath, even as others." Yet, according to the Arminian 
scheme, " guilt was not imputed to them," though they were, 
" by nature, children of wrath ! " Indeed, as Watson most 
conclusively reasons, if these guiltless children may suffer 
" temporal death," with equal certainty may they suffer 
" eternal death " — " the measure or duration of the punish- 
ment may be a greater or less injustice, but it is unjust (and 
of course, impossible with God,) in every degree." It fol- 
lows, therefore, that if Arminians taught the " horrible doc- 
trine of infant damnation," they would not more surely 
charge the Creator with injustice than with their present 
notions, viz. " that corruption, misery and death are the sad 
inheritance of infants," while they are chargeable only with 
"sin which they could not avoid/' or, rather, " guilt is not 
imputed to them at all ! " 

Thus, by the plain showing of its own most zealous 
defenders, the Arminian scheme is convicted of this great 
inconsistency, viz. "punishment without guilt;" i.e. "pun- 
ishment without any just liability to suffer ! " Other strange 
features of the scheme we reserve for future Letters. 



Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 41 



LETTER III. 

ORIGINAL OR BIRTH SIN— ITS RELATIONS TO THE ATONE- 
MENT—MEN BECOME SINNERS ONLY BY FREE GRACE. 

Rev. Sir — We propose now to examine with some care 
the logical relations of " Original or Birth Sin " to the 
Atonement. The Scriptures abundantly teach that " Christ 
died for our sins" — "died the just for the unjust, to bring 
us to God." But it is demonstrable on Arminian principles, 
that the Redeemer came into the world, not " to save men 
from sin," but rather to put them into a capacity of sinning, 
since it is only in consequence of his death and the grace 
revealed in it, that guilt becomes chargeable upon any indi- 
vidual of the race, except our first parents. In proof of 
this position, observe the following : 1. All the posterity 
of Adam are born with " a corruption of nature," whereby 
they are "inclined to evil, and that continually." 2. These 
sore evils are as necessary and unavoidable as the event of 
natural birth. 3. No person is "to blame for a (corrupt) 
nature which was forced upon him j to which he never con- 
sented, and which he never could avoid. His first parent 
may be to blame, but he cannot be responsible" " No being 
in the universe can censure him ; " * since it would be to 
blame and punish a person chargeable only with necessary 
and unavoidable sin, destitute of freedom of will, and " mor- 
ally incapable of a good choice." 4. But through the grace 
abounding in the Atonement, "the destructive effects of 
derived depravity are counteracted." f Man's "freedom of 
will " is restored ; he is " graciously assisted to make a vol- 
untary (i. e. a sinful) choice," and he thus becomes respon- 
sible and blame-worthy. But if no remedy — no grace — had 
been provided, man's condition as a fallen creature " would 

* Foster's Objections to Calvinism, p. 124. 
t Dr. Fisk, p. 30. 
4* 



42 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. III. 

have been his misfortune, not his fault, and he would have 
been no more to blame than for having red hair." * 

Now, if these things are so, then it is plain that, inde- 
pendently of the death of Christ and the grace of the gospel, 
we could never have been chargeable with sin ; and of course 
Christ did not die to atone for the sins of any of the fallen 
race, except our first parents, since, but for his death and, the 
grace accompanying it, no others could have sinned, or at 
least, their sins being unavoidable, they would not have been 
"responsible" for them. But if this is so, it will follow 
that the " grace of the gospel/' instead of being any real 
favor toward mankind, is the greatest curse that could ever 
befall them. If, without the bestowment of grace; men 
could not have been held "responsible" for their conduct, 
they would have remained free from criminality; the 
righteousness of God could never have suffered them to be 
sent to hell ) and his goodness, we may suppose, would have 
bestowed upon them eternal life. But now, alas ! in conse- 
quence of the coming of Christ, and of grace being given 
them to deliver them from unavoidable sin and " merciless 
tyranny " — now they are all exposed to inexcusable blame 
and endless ruin ! 

Again : If this derived depravity be necessary and una- 
voidable, where was the " grace" in Christ's dying to 
" counteract its destructive effects ? " If we must suppose 
" the shedding of blood " in some way necessary to save man 
from being held " responsible " for unavoidable corruption j 
or in other words, to save him from " merciless tyranny." it 
would seem rather an act of justice, both to God and the 
creature. The Lord of the whole earth owes it to himself 
to do right. To say, then, that " through the grace of 
the gospel all are born free from a condemnation " which 
none but a tyrant could execute, is to confound all distinc- 
tion between those rights which eternal justice exacts, and 
* Reply to Fair-child's " Great Supper," p. 34. 



Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 43 

the unmerited favors which grace freely bestows. It is in 
fact to resolve the whole scheme of mercy into the payment 
of a debt, at least, so far as it respects all the offspring of 
Adam. But we need not say how utterly subversive is such 
a view of the first principles of the gospel, which is contin- 
ually represented as the blessed fruit of the most distinguished 
love, as the " unspeakable gift" of pure, unmerited mercy. 
Thus does Dr. Fisk's great argument against the doctrine of 
decrees (whether correctly or incorrectly applied, we inquire 
not now,) recoil upon himself. Like him of old, who defied 
the armies of Israel, Arminianism loses its head by the stroke 
of its own favorite sword. 

That these are legitimate deductions from Arminian pre- 
mises, is obvious. " It has been established," says Watson, 
(vol. ii. p. 67,) " that the full penalty of Adam's offense 
passed upon his posterity." And he elsewhere admits that 
"Paul represents all men under condemnation, in conse- 
quence of their connection with the first Adam j M and, 
again, that "by one man's disobedience many were made, 
constituted, accounted and dealt with as sinners, and treated 
as though they themselves had actually sinned ;" p. 397, 54, 
55. The full penalty which has passed upon all men to 
their condemnation, he represents (p. 55,) as consisting in 
three things. 1. "The death of the body." 2. "Death 
spiritual" — "thus it is, the heart is deceitful above all 
things, and desperately wicked." 3. "A third consequence 
is, eternal death ; " or, as the language is varied on page 
399, " a conditional liability to eternal death." Now, it will 
scarcely be denied that these are evils of the most awful char- 
acter that can befall mankind, being nothing less than death 
temporal, spiritual and eternal. And we are told that they have 
passed upon men, as the " full penalty," or righteous " con- 
demnation" of Adam's offense, in consequence of a connec- 
tion with him which they could not escape, if they were born 
at all. Here, then, is a triple curse, including death tempo- 



44 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. III. 

ral and spiritual, and a liability to eternal death, which no 
descendant of Adam has power to shun, and which is visited 
upon every child of his, " on account of sin " which is abso- 
lutely " unavoidable," in consequence of his connection with 
his first parents. We leave Dr. Fisk and his admirers to 
inform the public, whether this be the arrangement of a 
most " merciless tyrant ; " or whether, in their zeal against 
Predestination, they have not digged a ditch and fallen into 
it themselves. 

Again : The three -fold penalty which has passed upon 
all men on account of unavoidable sin, we are further told by 
Watson, is relieved by the fact that " all are born under a 
constitution of mercy, which actually existed before their 
birth;" vol. ii. p. 398. "A constitution of mercy!" 
Mercy for what, and for whom? Why, for men who are 
implicated in sin, for which, Dr. Fisk says, none but a tyrant 
could hold them "responsible," it being "unavoidable." 
We submit to these gentlemen the task of showing the infi- 
nite mercy and grace of the plan by which men are saved 
from the penalty and condemnation of the Divine law; while 
at the same time they assure us, that to leave them in that 
state would be an act of high-handed injustice and "tyran- 
ny." Truly, grace is no more grace, according to this 
scheme. It is hardly strict justice, or the payment of a 
moral debt. It supposes the most merciful Grod to create 
men under an arrangement or constitution by which all are 
plunged into an abyss of unavoidable sin and condemnation 
to death and misery. It then supposes him to provide a 
"constitution of mercy," by which only some are saved; 
whereas, if they had been only left to themselves, and no 
mercy and grace provided, they would have been " inclined 
to evil, and that continually ; " of course they would have 
" had no freedom of will left," and could not have been held 
" responsible " for their sins ! Thus, all men would have ; 
been blameless and harmless, without rebuke, and justly 



Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 45 

exposed to no misery, either in this world or the world to 
come. 

It will not relieve the Arminian scheme, to say with Dr. 
Fisk and the General Conference, that Adam was our " fede- 
ral head/' and that " by his unnecessitated sin, he and in 
him all his posterity became obnoxious to the curse of the 
Divine law." * This is true. It is sound Calvinism, viz. 
that "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by 
sin ; and so death has passed upon all men, for that (or in 
whom, Adam) all have sinned." Rom. 5 : 12. John Wesley, 
too, seemed, at least at times, to understand this subject : 
" The sufferings of all mankind (including infants) which are 
entailed upon them by the sin of Adam, are not the result of 
mere mercy (as Taylor of Norwich taught) but of justice also. 
In other words, they have in them the nature of punishments, 
even on us and our children. Therefore," continues Wes- 
ley, " children themselves are not innocent before God. They 
suffer -, therefore they deserve to suffer." f But what 
will Bishop Simpson and Mr. Foster say to this ? Their 
doctrine is — " They were born corrupt, and so cannot be 
guilty for this — they remain unregenerate, and are not to blame 
for this, because it was entirely without their consent." J 
Very different this from Wesley: " They suffer — therefore 
they deserve to suffer !" 

The great cardinal truth, that Adam was " the federal 
head and representative" of the whole race, solves the mys- 
tery of infant guilt and suffering in the Calvinistic scheme. 
No principle of government is more universally recognized 
and approved than that which involves millions, especially 
women and children who have no voice in their election, in 
the responsibilities incurred by their representatives ; as in 
war, and other heavy liabilities and sore calamities. But 

* Discourse on Predest. p. 3.. 

f Doctrine of Original Sin, part 3, sec. 2. 

X Objections to Calvinism, p. 166. 



46 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. III. 

what relief will the representative character of the first man 
bring our Arminian brethren ? It simply enables them to 
remove the knotty entanglement a little farther back. It 
exhibits the God of infinite mercy as constituting a federal 
relationship between Adam and his posterity, in virtue of 
which "death temporal, spiritual and eternal/' are visited 
upon them as the " full penalty" of sin which, as to all the 
descendants of the first pair, was absolutely necessary and un- 
avoidable, and for which they are " no more responsible than 
for having red hair ;" or, as Bishop S. and Mr. Foster express 
it, " they were born corrupt and so cannot be guilty for this," 
&c. Thus the "merciless tyranny," which they so earnestly 
denounce and charge upon Calvinism, is reduced to a system. 
It is provided for by a Divine " covenant," as Arminius and 
Watson term it ; it is executed in the order of nature and 
providence originally enstamped upon creation ! And to 
crown the whole scheme of contradiction, " a constitution of 
mercy" is introduced, the results of which are, to make the 
children of men responsible and guilty, and justly exposed to 
the curse j and thus "the grace of the gospel" proves to be 
a far greater evil than the original calamity ! If there had been 
no grace, according to this scheme, there could have been no 
sin, no punishment, no suffering, no sorrow among the poster- 
ity of Adam ! Of course, there was every reason of benevo- 
lence why Adam should have had posterity. " The state of 
all mankind," says Mr. Wesley, " did so far depend on 
Adam, that by his fall they all fall into sorrow, and pain, and 
death spiritual and temporal. And all this is no ways incon- 
sistent with either the justice or goodness of God." This is 
sound Calvinism j but he immediately adds a proviso : All 
this is perfectly consistent " with the justice and goodness of 
God :" " Provided, all may recover through the second 
Adam whatever they lost through the first." But if this be 
so, then it is the coming of the second Adam, " and the grace 
of the gospel," which alone vindicates " the justice and good- 



Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 47 

ness of God" in the fall of Adam's posterity " into sorrow, 
and pain, and death." But as God is supremely just and 
goody there could, of course, have been no such fall, if there 
had been no " second Adam" — and no " grace of the gos- 
pel." * Thus the offspring of Adam are indebted to pure 
grace for this dreadful "fall into sorrow, pain and death;" 
which otherwise would have been neither just nor good, and 
so altogether inconsistent with the character of the righteous 
Ruler of the universe ! Thus we reach the strange conclu- 
sion, that to Divine grace alone we must trace these sorrow- 
ful calamities which afflict mankind, these wide-spread and 
desolating ruins of the fall ! Nor does it help the matter in 
the least, that this scheme supposes the all-wise Creator to 
have entered into " a covenant" with Adam, including cer 
tain terms and conditions, involving certain consequences upon 
himself and his posterity in the event of his fall ; but that 
to suppose u the Judge of all the earth" to carry into effect 
those terms and conditions, which he himself had prescribed, 
would be an impeachment of both " his justice and good- 
ness !" So that nothing less than the sacrifice of God's own 
Son, the infinite grace of that exalted victim, is sufficient to 
relieve the eternal throne of such a stain and "justify the 
ways of God to men." Can this be the true idea of gospel 
GRACE, viz. a compensation for the hardships, the injustice, 
the cruelty which mankind must have suffered from the first 
covenant, if they had been doomed to endure precisely what 
an infinitely just and good God had threatened to inflict ? 

All the leading authors on the Arminian side of the ques- 
tion admit, and several of them largely demonstrate, that the 
original threatening : " in the day thou eatest thereof thou 
shalt surely die" — included both Adam and his posterity. 
Thus Wesley : u In and through their first parent, all his 
posterity died in a spiritual sense (not merely a temporal death 

* For the foregoing extract from Wesley, see his work on Original Sin, 
part 3, sec. 6. 



48 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. III. 

as Taylor had argued). By this " one man, sin entered and 
passed upon all men."* Of course, this was threatened in 
the "covenant" with Adam. Watson also conclusively 
proves that " death eternal" was involved in the same threat- 
ening. " In or through Adam, guilt (exposure to just pun- 
ishment) came upon all men."f Thus far their scheme is 
Calvinistic. But how do they reconcile this including of 
Adam's offspring under the curse, with " the justice and 
goodness" of God ? Why, says Adam Clarke, " God pro- 
vided a Redeemer." And but for this provision "it would 
have been unjust to permit them to propagate their like in 
such circumstances that their offspring must be unavoidably 
and eternally wretched." J But this is the same as to say, 
that the all-knowing, most wise and true God made a threat- 
ening, which both his justice and goodness forbid him to 
execute ! And, of course, it follows, that He never intended 
to execute it ! For how could God intend to execute a 
threatening, which would be an impeachment of his attributes 
of justice and goodness ? As well may we affirm that He 
makes promises which He cannot in justice and goodness per- 
form, and which He never intends to perform ! But this is 
sheer blasphemy. 

It is plain, therefore, that the position which " the grace of 
the gospel" holds in the Arminian scheme is this — to make 
it right and good for God to execute his threatenings, which 
otherwise would have been unjust and cruel — threatenings 
which he never could have intended to execute, because they 
were contrary to his justice and mercy ! The whole scheme 
is therefore resolved into the payment of a debt to the in- 
jured creature, and it is absurd to say with the Apostle, " the 
grace of God bringeth salvation." He should rather have 
said, "Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable justice, 
which pays the righteous demands which mankind have upon 

* Original Sin, part 2, sec. 1 . f Clarke's Com. on Rom. 5 : 14. 

J See his Com. on Pwom. 5, near the close. 



Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 49 

him for the injuries they suffered under the original threat- 
ening, ' thou shalt surely die V " Such are some of the strange 
inconsistencies — to use no harsher term — of Arminian grace ! 
That we have correctly understood the Arminian scheme, 
is further evident from the following argument abridged from 
Watson : " It is not denied that the will in its purely natu- 
ral state and independent of all grace, can incline only 
to evil. But the question is, whether it is so left, and 
whether, if this be contended for, from whatever cause it 
may arise, whether from the influence of circumstances 
or co-action, or from its own invincible depravity, it ren- 
ders him punishable who never had the means of pre- 
venting his will from lapsing into this diseased state, who was 
born with this moral disease," &c. " We reply," says Wat- 
son, " that this is only true when the time of trial is past, as 
in devils and apostates ) and then only because they are per- 
sonally guilty of having so vitiated their wills," &c. " They 
themselves are justly chargeable with this state of their wills 
and all the evils resulting from it. But the case is widely 
different with men who, by their hereditary corruption, and 
the fall of human nature, to which they were not consenting 
parties, are born with a will averse to all good."* But if 
this be a correct view of the case, it follows necessarily that 
if men had been left in that u purely natural state," and the 
children of Adam had been born without any interference of 
grace, without any atonement, they could not have been 
" held to be cidpable ;" they would not have been " punish- 
able" for original depravity, nor "for any of the evils result- 
ing from it." So that if the posterity of Adam had only 
been so fortunate as to have had no grace provided for them, 
not a soul of them could have been cidpable, or punishable. 
Thus it is to grace we must impute all the guilt and misery 
which have ever befallen men, excepting only our first pa- 
rents, who became sinners without grace. And even Adam and 

* Institutes, vol. ii. pp. 437, 438. 



50 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. III. 

Eve, as we will presently show, could not have committed, 
according to this scheme, more than the first transgression, 
inasmuch as it is expressly affirmed that they thereby lost 
their "freedom of will" which was restored by grace ! From 
all which it follows that " the grace of the gospel" was in- 
deed a great favor, so far as respects the pardon of the first 
sin, but that ever since, it has been " evil and only evil con- 
tinually I" 

But perhaps the Arminian will reply, that but for the grace 
provided in the atonement of Christ, Adam must have speed- 
ily perished, and of course could have had no posterity. 
" Had our first parents," says Watson (vol. ii. p. 395), 
" died ( in the day 7 they sinned, which, but for the introduc- 
tion of a system of mercy and long suffering, for any thing 
that appears, they must have done, the human race would 
have perished with them," &c. And on page 398, he speaks 
of the opposite opinion as a Calvinistic " assumption" — "one 
of the great and leading mistakes" of the Calvinists, and as 
great presumption to assume it as a truth, that they would 
have multiplied their species only for eternal destruction. 
But if Arminians correctly describe their own system, it is 
obvious that, so far as respects the posterity of Adam, the 
probability of their existence would have been at least as 
great without grace as with it. Without " the grace of the 
gospel," as they explain it, mankind would have been neither 
culpable nor punishable for their conduct, as Watson himself 
affirms. They would all have been born in a guiltless state, 
where they would deserve neither blame nor punishment for 
original depravity ; and "they could not have been held to 
be culpable for any of the evils resulting from this invincible 
depravity," " because their wills could have inclined only to< 
evil." It is folly, therefore, to talk of "multiplying their 
species for eternal destruction." They would have been mul-\ 
tiplied in a perfectly guiltless state, deserving neither blame 
nor punishment. And certainly such a state would have 



Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 51 

been no less worthy of the Supreme Ruler, than the present 
state of things ; viz. an arrangement of Arminian grace, in 
which they are " shapen in iniquity, and in sin do their 
mothers conceive them;" and worse still, only a part of these 
" children of wrath" are certain to be saved, while thousands 
were known to the Divine Mind as infallibly certain to be 
miserable for ever for their sin. It is plain, therefore, that 
on this scheme, it would have been far tetter, it would not 
have been unjust at all, as Dr. Clarke affirms, but both right- 
eous and good, " to permit them to propagate their like in 
such circumstances," and without any " system of mercy," 
which on Arminian principles only had the effect to render 
them justly "punishable" and exposed to endless destruc- 
tion. Nor does this doctrine of Arminian grace harmonize 
more logically with other aspects of the subject. In regard 
to Adam, Watson affirms that the sentence, " In the day 
thou eatest thou shalt surely die," was to be executed "in 
the self-same day of the transgression;" in other words, 
Adam must have died, and so could have had no posterity. 
But Dr. Clarke says it means " literally, a death thou shalt 
die. From that moment thou shalt become mortal and shalt 
continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally 
accomplished." * So also, President Edwards has shown 
conclusively, that the expression among the Hebrews, "in 
the day," does not necessarily signify immediate death, or 
that the exaction of the sentence should be within twenty-four 
hours from the act, particularly not the punishment in its 
full extent." The force of the phrase implies (1.) " a real con- 
nection between the sin and the punishment, as in Ezek. 33 : 
12, 13." (2.) " That Adam should be exposed to death by one 
transgression, without a second trial. 1 Kings 2 : 37. Solo- 
mon says to Shimei : On the day thou goest out * * * thou 
shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die, *. e. he 
should be liable to death for the first offense." (3.) " Be- 
* Com. on Gen. 2 : 17. 



52 DIFFICULTIES OF AEMINIANISM. Let. III. 

sides," reasons Edwards, " G-od did not oblige himself to 
execute the punishment in its utmost ' extent in that day. 
It was in part executed immediately. Adam lost his inno- 
cence, died spiritually, became corrupt, miserable, helpless, 
mortal."* " Adam,"- he continues, "was that day subjected 
to the curse of the law and condemnation to eternal perdi- 
tion." "In the language of Scripture, he is dead, i. e. in a 
state of condemnation to death ; just as the believer immedi- 
ately 'hath eternal life abiding in him/ i. e. hath the begin- 
ning of eternal life. So there was nothing in the threatening 
that bound God to execute the full punishment at once, nor 
any thing that determined that Adam should have no poster- 
ity." All these things were reserved in the power of the 
Creator. So, in like manner, the believer, who " hath eter- 
nal life," will at death and judgment receive a vastly greater 
degree of the same gracious reward. And the angels that 
sinned, did not receive their full punishment, which is re- 
served to the end of the world. These examples show that it 
is in perfect harmony with other Divine dispensations, both 
of goodness and severity, that Adam should be permitted to 
live, though threatened with death. 

But suppose we adopt Watson's view, viz. "that the sen- 
tence of death (" temporal, spiritual and eternal," as he 
explains it,) was to be executed in the self-same day Adam 
fell." The first and immediate consequence, we are assured, 
would have been the entire loss of "freedom of will." 
And though this loss — Adam having "had his trial, and 
become personally guilty of having vitiated his will" — 
would not have exempted him from being justly chargeable 
with sin ) his posterity, according to Watson, " being born 
with a will averse to all good," would not have been "punish- 
able." Besides, as the original law did not demand instanta- 
neous punishment, but would have been satisfied with the 
execution of its threatening at any time "in the day" of 
* Original Sin, p. 436. 



Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 53 

transgression, it can never be shown that the same sovereign- 
ty which might justly have granted a respite of a day, could 
not have added a month, or a year, or many years, to beings 
who would have propagated a race of men meriting neither 
blame nor punishment. But whatever we may think of this 
matter, it is plain that Watson's great argument against "the 
Calvinistic assumption " must fall to the ground. On Armin- 
ian principles, it is evident the* offspring of Adam could never 
have sinned at all, if they had not become sinners by grace I 

Further : The Arminian notion of the freedom of the 
will implies " indifference ; " or, in the language of President 
Edwards, " that equilibrium whereby the will is free from 
all antecedent bias." But, owing to the fall, man becoming 
" inclined to evil and that continually," could have no such 
freedom of will ; therefore, he was no longer a free agent ; 
therefore, he could commit no more sin, for none but a free 
agent can violate a moral law. Hence, mankind must have 
fallen into a state resembling " sinless perfection." Watson 
admits the fact of this loss of freedom and of capacity to 
good or evil. Hence, he quotes Arminius, affirming that 
" the will of man, with respect to true good, is captivated, 
destroyed and lost, and has no powers whatever, except such 
as are excited by grace." He also calls this condition of the 
will " an invincible inclination to evil ; " and maintains that 
" in its purely natural state," " the will can incline only to 
evil." Of course, as he affirms, on Arminian principles, 
they could have sinned no more if " the grace of the gospel " 
had not stepped in to render mankind blame-worthy, and ex- 
pose them to sin and its punishment.* 

As to the case of our first parents (to say nothing of the 

* This singular notion that man by the fall lost his " freedom of will," 
and became a sort of machine, appears to be quite a favorite feature of Ar- 
minian theology. Thus : "One of the first and unconditional results of this 
grace (of God) was the endowment of man with free will, * * * 
that attribute in man which constitutes him a fit subject of rewards and 
punishments, * * * a proper subject of moral government." Por- 

5* 



54 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM Let. III. 

fallen angels), it might be argued that they, too, having lost 
their " freedom of indifference," and having become corrupt 
and " inclined to evil continually" and invincibly, could 
have sinned no more. But he replies, that " the original 
act being their own and in their power, they were justly 
chargeable with the state of their wills and all the evils re- 
sulting from it." This conclusion is by no means self-evi- 
dent. Suppose a man of choice to deprive himself of reason, 
would he be bound to perform moral acts, of which he has 
become utterly incapable ; or could he be punished for not 
performing them, and made to suffer eternal torments for the 
neglect, just as though he were in possession of all the 
necessary powers of moral agency.* The same reasoning 
applies to the case of our first parents, after they had lost 
their freedom of indifference. Their first sin must . have 
been their last, but for grace I 

That we have not been drawing a caricature of the 
doctrinal views of Arminian Methodism, is further apparent 
from the following extracts from the stereotyped volume of 
doctrinal tracts, which were originally bound with the Disci- 
pline. " We say, man hath his freedom of will, not naturally 
but bij grace" " We believe that in the moment Adam 
fell, lie had no freedom of will left." And after quoting 
Baxter and the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, ch. 9 — 
" G-od hath endowed the will of man with that natural lib- 
erty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity 
determined to good or evil " — the writer (Wesley) adds — 
" Sure, here is as much said for free will as any man needs 

ter's Compendium of Methodism, pp. 288, 289. This is the same as to say 
that, but for gospel grace, Adam and all his posterity would not have been 
"fit subjects of either rewards or punishments ! " Again: "The human 
family would be completely unmanned." Of course, they would have been 
" mere machines." 

* For an able discussion of this point, the reader is referred to the " Bib- 
lical Repertory," conducted principally by the Professors at Princeton, N. J. 
See the July No. 1831. 



Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 55 

to say, and perhaps more." In other words, the Presbyterian 
doctrine says all that need to be said on the subject. This 
candid admission of their great chief, should silence " the 
hard speeches " which are so commonly and fluently uttered 
against Presbyterians, denouncing us as denying free-agency, 
and representing man as a mere machine, which acts only as it 
is acted upon. 

Among the great lights of modern Arminianism, perhaps 
no writer stands higher than Dr. Adam Clarke, the author 
of the Commentary. In addition to the quotations already 
given, the following are his sentiments upon the topics now 
under review : " Had man been left just as he was when he 
fell from God, he in all probability had been utterly unsal- 
able ; as he appears to have lost all his spiritual light and un- 
derstanding, and even his moral feeling" u As they (Adam 
and Eve) were, so would have been all their posterity, had 
not some gracious principle been supernaturally restored to 
enlighten their minds, to give them some knowledge of good 
and evil, of right and wrong, of virtue and vice, and thus 
bring them into a salvable state." * But if this be a true 
statement, our first parents, having sunk into a condition 
in which they had a no moral feeling, no knowledge of right 
and wrong," were no longer moral agents. Of course, they 
could perform neither holy nor unholy acts ; they could sin 
no more, until grace restored their freedom, and enabled 
mankind to commit all the sin that has flowed from the first 
transgression. Thus Grod is represented as the author of all 
sin since the fall I The society of devils, moreover, accord- 
ing to this theory, is as pure from actual sin as that of the 
angels around the eternal throne ! Nor is it conceivable that, 
on this scheme, there can be any punishment of a sinful being, 
who in the act of sin has blotted out conscience, moral feel- 
ing, and all sense of right and wrong, unless there be also 
punishment by grace I 

* Discourses, p. 77. 



56 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. 

The result of the whole is, that we have original sin 
which is no sin — depravity without fault, " inclination to 
evil" without criminality, the penalty of the law inflicted 
upon those who are not subjects of law, and wondrous 
" grace" to deliver us from a punishment which we do not 
deserve ! 

And now, most reverend and worthy Bishop, permit me, 
in closing this Letter, to retort the language which you have 
commended as applicable to our system : " Truth constrains 
us to say, we have found what appears to our mind great con- 
fusion, perplexity and contradiction, arising out of the diffi- 
culties of the (Arminian) doctrine." * If you can invent 
any method of scriptural exegesis or logical reasoning by 
which it is possible to reduce this chaos to order and harmo- 
nize its repulsive and discordant elements, you will do more 
to earn an earthly immortality than all those who have pre- 
ceded you in the same cause. 

In our next Letter we hope to close the discussion of the 
important topic of Original Sin and its relations. 



LETTER IV. 

ORIGINAL OR BIRTH SIN. — STATE AND PROSPECTS OF IN- 
FANTS. — SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF DEPRAVITY. — FREEDOM 
OF WILL NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
OF THE CONTROL OF MOTIVES. 

Rev. Sir — In order properly to understand the relations 
of " Original Sin" to the state and prospects of infants, espe- 
cially such as die before they are capable of moral action, let 
us look briefly at several points which are conceded by Ar-< 
minians. 

i. " The full penalty of Adam's offense passed upon all 
* Foster's Objections, p. 29. 






Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 57 

his posterity." Watson's Inst. vol. ii. p. 67. Of course, as 
he affirms, " the threatenings pronounced upon the first pair 
have all respect to their posterity as well as to themselves." 
p. 52. 

ii. " The provision made in the gospel does not affect the 
state in which men are born — the fact of their being born 
liable to (temporal) death, a part of the penalty, is sufficient 
to show that they are born under the whole malediction." 
Watson, vol. ii. pp. 66, 58. 

iii. " If it was righteous to attach that penalty to man's 
offense, it is most certainly righteous to execute it." vol. ii. 
p. 100. Of course, it would be " righteous to execute the full 
penalty" (" death temporal, spiritual and eternal,") upon 
" the posterity of Adam." 

No language could express more plainly the positions of 
Calvinists, than the three items just quoted. No terms could 
utter more explicitly the great scriptural truth, that by the 
fall, all mankind are under " the wrath and curse" of God — 
"are horn under the whole malediction" — and, of course, in- 
fants, as part of that " posterity," are justly liable to suffer 
" the full penalty." 

But is not this the same as teaching the horrible doctrine 
of "infant damnation V By no means. Men may be liable 
i. e. justly exposed to great evils, which they will never suffer. 
So it was with ail the redeemed now in glory, and so it was 
and is with all who die infants. Through " the grace of the 
gospel," they are washed, sanctified and saved. No Calvinist, 
so far as known to us, has ever denied this blessed and con- 
solatory truth. Even Calvin, in reply to the objection that 
" infants who are incapable of believing, -remain in their con- 
demnation," replies thus : " I oppose a contrary argument. 
All those whom Christ blessed are exempt from the curse of 
Adam and the wrath of G-od. And as infants are blessed bj 
him, it follows that they are exempted from death."* 
* Inst. vol. ii. p. 520. 



58 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. 

But the point of divergency where the two schemes of doc- 
trine separate is this : On what principle are infants saved ? 
Arminians affirm, as was shown in our last Letter, that u the 
provision of a Redeemer" was demanded as a matter of right, 
otherwise the full execution of the threatening on the poster- 
ity of Adam would have been palpably unjust I The gospel, 
therefore, was a remedy for the severity, injustice and cru- 
elty with which Grod's covenant threatened the children of 
Adam ! Of course, the Arminian idea of grace is the fay- 
meat of a just debt ! To speak of the gospel as a method 
of grace and mercy, when both justice and goodness would 
have been sacrificed if the offer of salvation had been with- 
held, is the most absolute folly. 

These remarks will prepare the way for a series of observa- 
tions on the subject of the state and future prospects of in- 
fants. 

1. The Romish doctrine represents the salvation of infants 
as dependent upon baptism. Hence Papists make it the duty 
even of women, the nurse for example, to baptize a new- 
born child, if death should be imminent.* Hence they have 
their limbus infantum, a place somewhere between heaven 
and hell, where unbaptized infants are supposed to remain in 
a state of insensibility. A sentiment nearly resembling this 
was held by some of the earlier Arminians, such as Episco- 
pius, Curcellaeus and others, who taught that persons dying 
in infancy always remain in an infantile state, having no 
more ideas in the future world than they had in this. 
Neither early nor later Calvinists have ever held such an un- 
worthy doctrine as this, or one approaching so nearly to " in- 
fant damnation !" 

2. Even Watson, though for the most part calm and de- 
cent in stating the views of his opponents, affirms that the 
Calvinistic system " brings with it the repulsive and shocking 

* In his controversy with Hughes, Dr. Breckinridge hinted the actual ex- 
istence of ante-not urn baptism among Romanists. 



Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 59 

opinion of the eternal punishment of infants." Bishop Simp- 
son and Mr. Foster think there is " abundant evidence" of 
the truth of the charge* With a great show of candor, how- 
ever, they add that " this horrible doctrine is now so univer- 
sally disclaimed, that we suppose a reformation has been 
wrought, &c." This great change among Calvinists they as- 
cribe to " the exposure of the horrors of the system" by Ar- 
minians ! But it so happens that the same unworthy artifice 
was employed by Fletcher in his fourth Check, nearly ninety 
years ago : " Calvinists," he tells us, " are now ashamed of 
consigning infants to the torments of hell." This was written 
in 1772. If the Bishop and Mr. F. have read the fourth 
Check, they ought to have known that their " now" is nearly 
a century out of date, and proves to be an old Arminian 
stratagem, altogether unworthy an honorable controvertist. 

If the Calvinists of former or latter times were chargeable 
with this revolting dogma, we have not discovered the evi- 
dence in their writings. Francis Turretine, one of the dis- 
tinguished theological successors of Calvin at Geneva, pub- 
lished his system of Theology a hundred years before the 
time of Fletcher. In the only place which we have noticed 
where he speaks of the prospects of the infants of " infidels 
and pagans," he says : " Christian charity bids us hope (nos 
jubeat sperare) that they are saved." And in reply to the 
objection that "without faith it is impossible to please Grod," 
Turretine says : " They (infants) please G-od on account of 
the satis/action of Christ imputed to them for remission of 
their sins, though themselves incapable of apprehending him 
by faith." And again, he quotes Matt. 19 : 14, " Of such 
is the kingdom of Grod." " For although they are adduced 
as an example of humility for adults, yet Christ includes (not 
excludes) infants themselves in the promise. "f No doubt 

* Objections to Calvinism, p. 209. 

f Inst. Theol. Locus 15. Queestio 14. Tho work is the text-book at 
Princeton, and a standard authority throughout the world. 



60 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. 

there was a Fletcher or a Foster of Turretine's day, to prac- 
tice the same small ad captandum artifice, viz. " Calvinists 
have now become ashamed of consigning infants to hell !" 
So also Mr. Toplady, who died in 1778, one of the most able 
and decided opponents Wesley ever had. No man ever sus- 
pected him of a disposition to disguise any opinions he might 
think worth holding. Yet on this very subject of " infant 
damnation" he says : " I testify my firm belief that the souls 
of all departed infants are with God in glory — that reproba- 
tion hath nothing to do with theni." Again : " Such as die 
in infancy are all undoubtedly saved."* And Dr. John 
Owen, whose first work was published in 1642, says : " It 
follows unavoidably, that infants who die in infancy, have 
the grace of regeneration and as good a right to baptism as 
believers themselves."*)* And that eminently pious and judi- 
cious commentator, Dr. Scott : " Infants are as capable of 
regeneration as grown persons. And there is ground to con- 
clude, that all those who have not committed actual trans- 
gressions, though they share in the effects of the first Adam's 
offense, will also share in the blessings of the second Adam's 
gracious covenant."! Hundreds of similar testimonies might 
be adduced, but these should suffice to admonish Arminians 
of the importance of committing to memory the command- 
ment, " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neigh- 
bor." 

It is humiliating, irdeed, to find even so sober a contro- 
vertist as Watson, guilty of a similar unworthy artifice : 
11 That some under the sentence of reprobation, die in their 
infancy is, probably, what most Calvinists allow." Observe 
how guarded — "probably what most Calvinists allow V 
Just enough said to convey the broad inuendo, but not 
enough to alarm conscience with the thought of uttering an 
untruth ! Again, he says : ■■ If their doctrine be received, it 

* Works, pp. 58, 142. f Works, vol. xxi. p. 550. 

% Com. on Matt. 19 : 14. 



Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 61 

(the death of infants who are reprobates) cannot he denied." 
But this is mere reckless assertion without the shadow of 
proof. There is no feature of the doctrine of Election which 
requires us to believe any infant to be lost. It is just as easy 
and logical to believe all who die in infancy to be of the elect, 
as to believe all who die regenerate to be of the elect. Cal- 
vinists can and do deny the reprobation of the one class, just 
as consistently as the other. Viewing the race as one great 
family of "the lost/' it is perfectly natural and logical to 
hold that all who die infants are " chosen in Christ from the 
mass unto eternal glory" — just as easy as to believe that He 
who gives and takes life at his pleasure, can manage the 
affairs of his providence so wisely that this result shall be 
infallibly secured. If our Arminian brethren cannot compre- 
hend so plain a deduction, it is their fault, not ours. 

3. One of the strangest mysteries of this feature of the 
Arminian system, will appear in the following contrast : 

" All are born under the whole " They are born free from con- 
malediction." — Watson. damnation." — Fish. 

" Derived depravity is damning in " They were born corrupt, and so 

its nature." — Fisk. cannot be gxiilty for this." — Foster. 

" By the obedience of one (Christ), " As to infants, they are not, in- 

righteousness is imputed to all in- deed, born justified and regenerate, 

fants, and they stand justified before Original sin is not taken away, as to 

God " — " they are in a state of favor infants, by Christ." — Watson. 
or justification." — Fletcher. 

" Every punishment supposes the " The guilt or the punishment of 

offender might have avoided the of- Adam's sin is charged upon his whole 

fense for which he is punished, other- posterity, a main part of which ^noi- 

wise to punish him would be palpably ishnient consists in that original (un- 

unjust." — Wesley. avoidable) defilement, in which they 

are born." — Goodwin, approved by 
Watson. 

This curious contrast, extracted from the ablest publica- 
tions of the General Conference, teaches that infants are born 
under the curse, but not under condemnation — are justified, 
but not pardoned — are punished, but suffer no punishment — 
are originally defiled, and thus suffer " palpable injustice." 
6 



62 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMLNIANISM. Let. IV. 

4. But no such mystery hangs around other statements 
from the same source : " All are born/' says Wesley, " under 
the guilt of Adam's sin, and all sin deserve eternal misery." 
" Infants, too, die ; therefore, they have sinned — by original 
sin." But here arises the question : How are these infants 
to be saved? "In the ordinary way," replies "Wesley, 
Ci they cannot be saved, unless this stain be washed away 
by baptism." " The benefit is to be received through bap- 
tism in particular, to which G-od hath tied us, though he has 
not tied himself." " Indeed, where baptism cannot be had, 
the case is different ; but extraordinary cases do not make 
void a standing rule." * This appears plain enough. With- 
out baptism, no infant can ordinarily be saved, unless in ex- 
treme cases, where baptism cannot be had ! " What, then, 
becomes of the thousands of infants who die unbaptized, but 
who might have had baptism if their parents had desired it ? 
And to fix the meaning beyond doubt, we are told : " It is 
certain, by God's word, that children who are baptized, dying 
before they commit actual sin, are saved." The baptized 
are " certainly saved " — but then what becomes of the un- 
baptized, of whom we are told : " It has been proved that 
this original stain cleaves to every child, and that thereby 
they are ' children of wrath/ and liable to eternal damna- 
tion" These were the sentiments of Wesley; and his fol- 
lowers publish and circulate them widely. If they wish to 
discover " infant damnation," let them look at home ! It is 
obvious that thousands die in infancy unbaptized, but who 
lived where " baptism could have been had." Of course, 
" their stain was not washed away by baptism," and we are 
assured that, " in the ordinary vjay," such infants " CANNOT 
be saved." Now, as such infants do not fall under " the 
extraordinary cases" they are infallibly lost ! There is no 
method of avoiding this logical conclusion. 

5. It has long been a favorite device of sectarian bigotry 

* Doctrinal Tracts, pp. 24fi, W< 



Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 63 

to misrepresent and hold up to detestation the views of the 
Presbyterian church on this topic. Finding that the uniform 
tenor of the writings of our leading authors and preachers 
furnish no foundation for their imputations, Arminians 
have labored hard to torture our Confession of Faith into 
some declaration such as would suit their purpose. We are 
charged with the everlasting perdition of infants, chiefly on 
two grounds : 

(1.) " The Confession no where expressly affirms that al] 
who die in infancy are saved." But, neither does the Meth- 
odist Book of Discipline teach that doctrine. Of course, it 
follows that the preachers must hold " infant damnation ! " 
And what renders this more probable is, that they are taught 
in their form of baptism to say that " all men are conceived 
and born in sin," and " to call upon G-od, the Father, through 
our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will 
grant to this child that which by nature he cannot have;" 
that he would " wash him and sanctify him with the Holy 
Ghost ; " and that he (the child) " may be delivered from 
God's wrath." Now, does not all this plainly prove that 
they regard the child as an object of God's wrath ; and that 
if he were to die in that state he would be lost? Does it not 
further prove that the preachers believe the child in danger 
of such an awful fate ? else why should they pray so fer- 
vently for his deliverance from it — that is, a deliverance from 
a fate which could not possibly befall him ? In other words, 
why should they pray that G-od would not hold the child un- 
der his wrath j that he would not do a thing which, them- 
selves being judges, would be "palpably unjust," and which 
would exhibit him as a " most merciless tyrant ? " A strange 
sort of prayer, truly! How evident, therefore, is it, that 
whatever the preachers may say, their own Discipline incul- 
cates "infant damnation!" (2.) A second ground of the 
charge against Presbyterians, of teaching that some infants 
dying in childhood are lost, is, that our Confession employs 



64 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMLNIANISM. Let. IV. 

the phrase, " elect infants," which is said to imply that some 
who die in childhood are non-elect. Not to repeat what has 
been often said, that the objected phrase is perfectly consist- 
ent with the persuasion that all infants dying in infancy are 
elected or saved by grace from among the lost family of man- 
kind, and of course that they will not be wanting when the " Son 
of man shall gather his elect from the four winds of heaven" 
(Matt. 24 : 31) : not to urge the fact that the Scriptures no 
where, in so many words, reveal the salvation of all such, 
though giving many sweet and precious intimations of the 
truth of the doctrine : let us try the force of this Arminian 
battery upon its authors. The Methodist Book of Discipline 
(Form of Baptism, p. 105,) employs a phraseology similar 
to that of our Confession : " Grant," say they, " that this 
child, now to be baptized, may ever remain in the number 
of thy faithful and elect children." This of course cannot 
refer to election to national privileges or family immunities — 
but, as the term " elect " is applied to a particular individual, 
it must mean "personal election" And, as they most 
violently maintain that this necessarily implies the opposite 
reprobation, it follows that the terms " elect children " 
unavoidably teach the horrible doctrine of "reprobate 
children." Thus, this heavy artillery of Methodist Ar- 
minians recoils upon themselves. A few victories of this 
sort will ruin their cause. And to add to the mystery of 
the transaction, the very " elect child " then being baptized, 
is in danger of becoming a reprobate, and, of course, of being 
lost! The proof is at hand — the preacher as he performs 
the service, is required to pray most fervently, that the child 
may remain one of the elect — " ever remain in the num- 
ber of thy faithful and elect children," i. e. not become a 
reprobate and perish ! So evident is it that the Discipline 
teaches the horrible doctrine of " infant reprobation." * 

* The venerable Dr. L. Beecher, in speaking of the calumnious charge 
made against Calvinists, of holding " infant damnation/' says : " I have 



Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 65 

But there is still a greater mystery connected with this 
subject. We are accused by our opponents with maintaining 
that some infants are forever lost. We think, however, that 
on the principles of Arminian Methodism, no infant can 
possibly be saved. What is salvation ? Does it not imply 
deliverance from the guilt, pollution, and just punishment 
of sin ? Are not infants declared (Meth. Discip. p. 103,) 
to be " conceived and born in sin," and of course, under its 
guilt and pollution? Are not these evils unavoidable? 
And is it not repeatedly affirmed in the standard writings of 
Methodism, that for Grod to hold his creatures responsible 
for what is unavoidable, would be " palpably unjust," and 
worthy the government only of a " merciless tyrant ! " 
What then are infants to be saved from ? From an act of 
" palpable injustice " on the part of their Judge ? From the 
grasp of a " merciless tyrant ? " Most manifestly, therefore, 
on these principles of Methodism, NO INFANT CAN BE 
SAVED, simply because no in/ant needs salvation I With 
respect to all the vast multitude of the human family who 
have gone down to the grave, not knowing " their right hand 
from their left," Christ " has died in vain." Their song 
will not be, " Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from 
our sins in his own blood " — for they never stood in need of 
" washing." Their song will rather be, " Unto Him that by 
His providence cut short our days, and saved us from 
living any longer in the body — which was the greatest evil 
we had any reason to fear ! Thanks be to Him, who thus 
snatched us from exposure to Arminian grace, which would 
have restored our ' freedom of will ' and made us responsible 
sinning creatures and liable to everlasting torments ! Thanks 

never soon or heard of any (Calvinistic) book which, contained such a senti- 
ment, nor a man, minister or layman, who believed or taught it. And I 
feol authorized to say that Calvinists, as a body, are as far from teaching it 
as any of those who falsely accuse them. Such persons should commit to 
memory without delay the ninth commandment — "Thou shalt not bear 
false witness against thy neighbor." 

6* 



66 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. 

be to death, the king of terrors, who delivered us from such 
a scheme of grace, from such a system of mercy. Or rather, 
if we owe any gratitude at all, it is because we have received no 
more than bare justice — that which was our righteous due, and 
which a holy God could not have withheld — ' for we were born 
corrupt, and cannot be guilty for that!'"* Such, on strict 
Arminian principles, would be the song of infants in heaven ! 

Before closing this Letter, let us look for a few moments at 
the scriptural view of the subject, which is involved in so 
many strange contradictions. 

The tendencies of the Arminian scheme are plainly to 
"reproach our Maker." In the "covenant" made with 
Adam, that system represents God as " a hard master." To 
execute the terms of that covenant upon the posterity of 
the fallen pair, would have been injustice, cruelty, &c. To 
shield the character of the Lawgiver from these righteous 
and true imputations, was the object of "the system of 
mercy ! " The gospel, God's greatest and best gift, is, after 
all, only a fair and equitable " compensation " for outrageous 
wrong ! To heal this outrage, " whatever was forfeited in 
the first Adam, has been either restored or compensated for 
by the second Adam." f Thus, the " Holy One of Israel " 
wipes away the stain which otherwise must have blotted the 
purity of his government. 

Calvinists, on the other hand, view " the covenant" with 

* Objections to Calvinism, p. 166. In another place Mr. Foster says: 
u How was he to blame for an existence and nature which were forcod upon 
him — which never at any period he consented to, and which he nevor could 
avoid ? " It is to be regretted that our Methodist brethren are verging so 
rapidly toward the Pelagian scheme of Taylor of Norwich, who was also an 
Arian. President Edwards quotes him as follows : "If we come into the 
world infected with sinful and depraved dispositions, then sin must be natu- 
ral to us; and if natural, then necessary ; and if necessary, then no sin ; 
* * nor can it in any respect be our fault, being ivhat we cannot help." 
Even Mr. Wesley solidly refuted these fundamental heresies of Taylor. See 
his work on " Original Sin," in reply to that arch-heretic. 

f Meth. Quart. Rev. April, 1854. 



Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 67 

Adam as like all others of God's works, originally "very good." 
"But our first parents being left to the freedom of their own 
will, fell from the estate wherein they were created by sin- 
ning against God/' * " By the disobedience of one, many 
were made sinners/' "Adam," says "Watson, "is to be re- 
garded as a public man, the head and representative of the 
human race." f " By the offense of one, judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation." Was this a harsh, cruel, 
unjust arrangement? Far from us be such blasphemy ! A? 
Wesley well remarks, " That deadly wound in Adam" pre 
pared the way (created the necessity) for " the greatest in- 
stance of Divine love." Besides, it was the shortest way for 
man to obtain everlasting happiness. By this method, one 
man's perfect obedience for a short time, would have secured 
eternal life to all mankind ; whereas, had each stood bound 
for himself, it must have remained in suspense to many a* 
least, until their personal probation had expired; and no one 
can tell how large a number would have failed in the trial and 
perished for ever ; perhaps more than now perish. 

This method also appears reasonable and hind; because it 
was the safest method. As Wesley has truly observed : 
" Unless in Adam all had died, being in the loins of their 
first parent, every descendant of Adam must have 'personally 
answered for himself to God. It seems to be a necessary 
consequence of this, that if he had once fallen, once violated 
any command of God, there would have been no possibility 
of his rising again ; there was no help ; but he must have 
perished without remedy." " Who would not rather be on 
the footing he is now ? Who would wish to hazard a whole 
eternity upon one stake ?" " Where then is the man that 
presumes to blame God for not preventing Adam's sin? 
Should we not rather bless him from the ground of the heart 
for therein laying the grand scheme of man's redemption ?" | 

* Shorter Catechism, Q. 13. f Watson's Instit. 

X See his sermon on " God's love to fallen man." 



68 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. 

Adam was obviously the most proper person to be the cove- 
nant head of all mankind. As their common parent, he was 
equally related to all, and had the strongest motives and best 
opportunities to persevere in perfect obedience. The most 
wise, holy, just and good God having chosen him for theii 
-head, none of his posterity, if they had been all alive and on 
the spot, could without attempting to be wiser than their 
Maker, have refused their cordial consent. "Would it have 
been either more wise or more merciful, to have ordered that 
each individual should enter the world in the immaturity of 
his being, while yet his faculties of body and soul were in the 
imperfect and undeveloped state, then, to stand his trial for 
weal or woe ; or that one should be appointed, strong and 
vigorous, in all the perfection of that original manhood, which 
the all-wise G-od pronounced " very good" — that such a one 
should be given us, in whose hands should be placed our des- 
tiny, and by whose conduct should be decided the future 
character of his posterity ? Could every child of Adam have 
looked on when the scheme was ordained in the councils of 
eternity, true modesty would have dictated the right answer 
to these inquiries. And had the result been the establish- 
ment of the whole human family in perpetual holiness and 
happiness, every tongue would have celebrated the wisdom 
and extolled the benevolence of so wise and wonderful an 
arrangement. 

Another topic in this connection, deserves a little fur- 
ther notice. Arminians, with all their talk about " de- 
rived depravity," its " damning nature/' &c. plainly teach 
that a man born with a sinful disposition, a depraved na- 
ture, is born with such a necessity of sinning as perfectly 
excuses him. To relieve men of this inherited necessity, and 
in part restore these original ruins of the fall; in a word, to 
impart "freedom of will," and make man a blame-worthy 
creature, is, in their view, one of the great and blessed results 
of "the grace of the gospel!" Wonderful grace, indeed, 



Let. IV. OKIGINAL SIN. 69 

which takes away man's just and righteous excuse, and makes 
him guilty and justly condemned ! But it is not true that 
because we are horn with corruption of nature, we are there- 
fore excusable for it. This notion of Arminians is inconsist- 
ent with the common sense of mankind. We often say of a 
person of a savage, malicious, murderous disposition, " it is 
just like him, and like his father and grandfather before him. 
They were always naturally a brutal and ferocious family. 
And this son is a worthy child of such parents." But does 
this ever strike the common mind as a sufficient apology for 
murder, rape, arson ? If a man do a murderous deed, insti- 
gated by a cruel and revengeful disposition, we make no in- 
quiry whence he derived that disposition, or what it was that 
originated his murderous choice. And the more determined 
and impulsive this hent of the will for murder, the more atro- 
cious the act, even though he developed a thirst for blood in 
childhood ! Such is the common judgment of all mankind. 
The disposition may have been transmitted as a constitutional 
bias from father to son ', but that rather aggravates the crime 
than offers an apology for it. Apply the same reasoning to 
the inherited depravity of our fallen nature. " There is not/' 
says an eloquent writer^ " a more effectual way of bringing 
this to the test than by supposing one man the object of great 
provocation and injustice from another. Let a neighbor in- 
flict upon you some moral wrong. Do you pause to inquire 
whence he has derived the selfishness or the malice under 
which you suffer ? If it be under some necessity which vio- 
lates and thwarts his disposition to do you a kindness, you 
feel no resentment, no spirit of retaliation. But if he be in- 
cited by the strength of his depraved passions — say a ma- 
licious disposition to do you harm — so far from this furnish- 
ing an apology, you feel that the obstinate tendency or bias 
of his will to injure you, only adds to the turpitude of his 
conduct. The more hearty the will, choice, or impulse you 
saw he had to hurt or traduce or defraud you, the more would 



70 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. 

you hold him to be the culpable subject of your most just and 
righteous indignation.* This is unquestionably the only 
true and common sense view of the subject. The stronger a 
man's bent or inclination to do evil, the more wicked his act. 
And whether this inclination, bent or bias of the niind, be 
derived from an immediate parent, or through a line of 
twenty generations of malicious and evil disposed ancestors, 
or from Adam himself, alters not the nature of the act. That 
advocate would render himself ridiculous, who should plead 
before a jury for the acquittal of the deliberate murderer, on 
the ground that he had inherited a murderous bias from his 
parents, and therefore could not avoid the crime ! If these 
be correct conclusions, they invalidate the labored disserta- 
tions of Arminians,f on the subject of necessitated will, 
coerced volitions, unavoidable choice, &c. Mr. Fletcher, 
though not often very discriminating, caught a glimpse of the 
truth, when he wrote as follows : " All we assert is, that 
whether a man chooses good or evil, his will is free, or it does 
not deserve the name of will." And he afterward quotes 
with strong approval as his " very sentiments/' the follow- 
ing : " God does not force any man to will either good or 
evil ', but man, through the corruption of his understanding, 
naturally and freely wills that which is evil. "J This is sound 
doctrine, but modern Arminians utterly reject this view. 
Man's corruption, they tell us, destroys his " freedom of 
will ;" his inherited depravity is attended with a bias, or bent 
of inclination to evil, which is a perfect excuse for his crimes, 
if such they can be called ! It is the province of " free 
grace" to disarm corruption of its power in all, so far as to 
make them sufficiently free to become guilty and righteously 
condemned ! 

* Abridged from Dr. Chalmers on Rom. 5. 

j- The Arminian doctrine is, that man's natural or inherited depravity, 
corruption, or tondoncy to sin, destroys his liberty and would make him ex- I 
cusable, if grace had not interfered to restore his " free will." 

J Soo his fourth Check. 



Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. Tl 

Messrs. Simpson and Foster labor with great zeal to con- 
vict our system of "absolute necessity," and call it "fate/' 
" blasphemy," " infinite absurdity," &c. They ridicule the 
idea that "motives exercise a controlling force over us."* 
We admit that the word force might be understood to convey 
an idea altogether inconsistent with freedom ; for, as Fletcher 
truly says, " will is free, or it does not deserve the name of 
will." Yet we read of the force of argument, the force of rea- 
soning, &c. But what is the meaning of the word motive in 
connection with acts of the mind ? Watson defines it : "'Not 
physical causes, * * * but reasons of choice, views and con- 
ceptions of things in the mind, * * * in consideration of 
which the mind itself wills and determines."}" Very well. 
But do not motives, i. e. reasons of choice, views and concep- 
tions" of what is most reasonable, right, fitting, desirable 
— do not these and similar reasons "control," i. e. govern, 
determine, decide the choice of the mind. J Certainly they 
do in all rational beings. The opposite is true only in the 
case of persons who have been deprived of reason I It is 
evident, therefore, that Messrs. Foster and Simpson have 
adopted a theory of will which suits only that unfortunate 
class of beings who have lost the balance of their minds, and 
whose will or choice is not " controlled by reason !" The 
only college on earth where this sort of liberty is taught and 
exemplified in its perfection, is an insane asylum ; for only 
there the choice or preference of the soul is governed by no 
" reasons — no views and conceptions" of what is right, rea- 
sonable, rationally desirable, &c. ! There the inmates decide 
without, and even against reasons. 

The doctrine of necessity, i. e. of the certainty that the 
mind will act in a particular way under certain circum- 

* Objections, Ac. p. 228. 
f Inst. vol. ii. p. 440. 

% The motive is that particular consideration which being presented to the 
mind determines it to act." — Meth. Mag. July, 1839, p. 259. 






72 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMIXIANISM. Let. IV. 

stances, is simply this — "Every rational and well balanced 
mind will certainly and freely choose that which, on the 
whole, under any given circumstances at the time of action, 
appears to its reason and intelligence to be fittest and best." 
The strength or power of these "reasons, views and concep- 
tions," in other words, of these motives, is so far from de- 
stroying man's liberty of will, that they are of the very 
essence of moral freedom — for without such reasons, he is 
insane and utterly irresponsible ! It is obvious then, that 
volitions are not necessitated, except in the sense of their 
future certainty, i. e. they are not forced, in the sense of con- 
straint or compulsion. " The idea of compelling a man to hate 
or love any object, is perfectly absurd. * * * That 
every one will choose that which, on the whole, in the act of 
choice, he prefers, is certain." This is only to say that the 
mind chooses what it does choose. To assert that the mind 
chooses in any act of will, what in that act it does not prefer, 
is only to say that it chooses contrary to its choice — which is 
a contradiction." A man may, indeed, perform external ac- 
tions by constraint, i. e. contrary to his preference or choice 
— but that is another thing entirely. 

But, say Messrs. Simpson and Foster : " Is not every man 
conscious to himself that his former course of (wicked) con- 
duct might have been different from what it was — that, under 
precisely the same circumstances, his volitions and acts might 
have been different."* In the sense we suppose intended, 
this is not denied. The whole obscurity arises from con- 
founding certainty with physical necessity. "When Calvinists 
speak of necessity in matters of the will, they mean certainty 
of existence. To illustrate the importance of this distinction, 
take the following example : " If a man of plain sense should 
be informed by prophecy that he would certainly kill a fellow- 
man the next day or year, and that he would be actuated by 
malice, it would never enter his mind that he should not be 

* Objections, p. 230. 



Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 73 

guilty of any crime, because the action was certain before it 
was committed. But, if you change the terms and say that 
he would be under a necessity to perpetrate the crime ; that, 
being absolutely certain, he could not possibly avoid it ; im- 
mediately the subject becomes perplexed and involved in dif- 
ficulties — for every man of common sense feels that he can- 
not be justly accountable for actions which he could not possibly 
avoid ; and that, for what he does from absolute necessity, 
he cannot, in the nature of things, be culpable. These 
terms include the idea of a compulsory power acting upon us, 
not only without, but in opposition to our own will. A 
necessary event, in this sense, is one which cannot be volun- 
tary or free; for if it were spontaneous, it could not be neces- 
sary ; these two things being diametrically opposite." * 

Agreeably to this reasoning, a voluntary action may be as 
certain of future existence, as a voluntary action that has 
already taken place is certain of past existence. The absolute 
certainty of David's adultery, for example, does not now 
forbid its being a voluntary action ', so, neither, did the abso- 
lute future certainty of the same act (or, what Calvinists 
mean by necessity in moral things,) forbid its being voluntary 
and blame-worthy, though infallibly known to the Divine 
mind a thousand years prior to its commission, or even from 
eternity. 

"A voluntary action may therefore be as certainly future 
as any other. If an action be voluntary, it is free, and the 
idea of a necessary, or, as Arminians say, a necessitated voli- 
tion, is absurd and contradictory." f And as regards the 
influence of a natural bias or bent of the mind to destroy its 
freedom, no one can doubt that in the holy soul of the man 
Christ Jesus, this bent or bias to virtue and holiness was 
perfect, unchangeable ; and his will infallibly certain as that 
of God himself, always to choose in one way. If the term 

.* Biblical Repertory for 1831, pp. 159, 160, 
f Ibid. 



74 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. 

necessity is ever allowable when speaking of the will, we 
might say that Grod is necessarily holy and just and true in 
all his volitions and actions — yet such a use of the term 
would be obviously improper, if anything more were meant 
than perfect and immutable certainty to do right. 

Every one is familiar with the fact that the influence of 
motives, i. e. u reasons, conceptions or views in the mind," 
depends, to a great extent, upon the temper or frame of tho 
mind : and nothing is more common than for men to regulate, 
moderate, and by long practice to gain the mastery over per- 
verse tempers and inclinations. If, for example, the temper 
of the soul be toward the indulgence of hatred or malice 
against a neighbor in any given case, a very small and trifling 
" reason or conception " of wrong received, will lead to vio- 
lence and even to murder — because "the reason/' in that 
frame of the soul, appears very strong. But to another per- 
son, and, indeed, to the same man in other states or frames 
of the mind, the " reason," and of course the act, will seem 
perfectly contemptible, and he will be amazed at his own 
folly. Now, as man is responsible for the frame or temper 
of his soul, which often makes " the worse appear the better 
reason," so is he responsible for the strength or " controlling 
power " of the " conception " or motive which persuaded him 
to commit any crime — say murder, as in the case supposed. 

But, replies the Arminian, does not this doctrine suppose 
necessity, i. e. that man acts without freedom ? Certainly 
not. It supposes the man to be a rational, intelligent being, 
liable, indeed, to the influence of bad frames, habits or tem- 
pers of mind. It further supposes, not that he always acts 
under the impulse of " reasons " which are really the wisest 
and best, but he acts from those motives which at the mo- 
ment impress him as the best and most fitting under all the 
circumstances. In a very short time, indeed, he may correct 
his error and curse his folly, because the frame or temper of 
his mind having changed, "the reason and conception," %. e. 






Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 75 

the motive, loses its persuasive power. But, as these frames, 
habits or tempers of the mind form the ground-work of the 
intentions, they, to a great extent, make the act what it is in 
morals. 

We agree with Fletcher, therefore, that to talk of a neces- 
sitated will or choice, in the sense of co-action, is to talk 
nonsense. Such a use of the terms is absurd — -just as it 
would be to talk of logical affections, or a round square, or a 
dark light, or a loving hatred, or any other absurd collocation 
of terms. A man may be necessitated to a bodily action 
against his will — but the will itself is of its own nature 
always free, and the motives, i. e. "the reasons or concep- 
tions " which lead to choice, are essential to the rational na- 
ture of the mind — without them it is neither sane nor morally 
responsible. And the strength of these motives is very 
much, in any given case, what a man makes it. 

But here the inquiry may arise : How far is the Divine 
Being concerned in original depravity and the acts which 
flow from it ? No Calvinist teaches that God infuses sin into 
our nature. As a just punishment of the original fall of our 
first parents, man has lost original righteousness — and the 
consequence, viz. depravity of nature, invariably follows. 
This was true of Adam, and is true of his posterity — as like 
produces like. And as regards the sinful actions — say 
of the murderer or adulterer, Wesley makes the following 
distinctions : " Grod supplies such a wicked person with the 
jpoiver to act, which he cannot have but from G-od ; he does 
this knowing what he (the murderer) is about to do. God, 
therefore, produces the action which is sinful. It is his work 
and his will (for he works nothing but what he wills), and 
yet the sinfulness of the act is neither his work nor will." * 
Calvinists take no stronger ground than this. 

And then, as regards those frames, tempers and habits of 
the soul, which are the fruits of original depravity — in an- 
* Original Sin, part 3, sec. 7. 



76 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. 

swer to Dr. John Taylor's inquiry — " Can those propensities 
be sinful, wliich are neither caused nor consented to by me ? ■' 
Wesley replies : " Spite, envy, and those other passions and 
tempers which are manifestly discernible even in little 
children, are certainly not virtuous, not morally good. And 
these exist before they are consented to, &c. i Tempers con- 
trary to the nature and law of G-od are natural] i. e. inherited 
as part of our nature. These tempers do exist in us ante- 
cedent to our choice." "Actual sins," adds Wesley, "may 
proceed from a corrupt nature, and yet not be unavoidable. 
But if actions contrary to the nature of Grod were unavoid- 
able, it would not follow that they were innocent." * In 
these instances, Mr. Wesley was refuting the doctrines of 
that celebrated Pelagian, Taylor of Norwich, who bitterly 
denied original sin. This fact accounts for these and similar 
statements from his pen. Messrs. Simpson and Foster would 
do well to take a few lessons from him on that topic. They 
would thus discover that they agree much more closely with 
the Pelagian Taylor than with Mr. Wesley. Far from him 
be such sentiments as the following : " Neither are they to 
blame for this, because it was entirely without their consent. 
They were born corrupt, and so cannot be guilty for that." f 
Mr. W. refutes with great force of logic, the same sentiment 
expressed by Taylor, in pretty much the same words ! What- 
ever may have been his errors, Wesley could say with David 
and others — ( Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin 
did my mother conceive me." " The carnal mind is enmity 
against G-od, for it is not subject to his law, neither indeed 
can be." "And we (Christians) were by nature children 
of wrath, even as others." This is not the language of men 
who taught — "They were born corrupt, and therefore could 
not be guilty ! " 

These are strange developments in Arminian theology. 

* Misc. Works, vol. ii. p. 278. 

f Objections to Calvinism, p. 166. 



Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 77 

The system appears to be passing into the frozen regions of 
Pelagianism. The scraps of sound doctrine which at first 
adhered to it, and which, like salt, for a time preserved the 
mass from putrefaction, are becoming more and more unpal- 
atable to the leaders. If they continue thus to "walk 
in the counsel " of Pelagians, and "stand in the way" of 
such errorists as Taylor of Norwich, they may soon be pre- 
pared to " sit down " with scorners such as Belsham, Priestley, 
et id genus omne. But we hope better things of Arminian 
Methodism, though we thus speak. 



LETTEB V. 

FOREKNOWLEDGE— PREDESTINATION. 

Rev. Sir — The volume which your Book Concern has 
published and which you have recommended as " very valu- 
able," " of great merit," &c. occupies more than a hundred 
pages with the subject of " eternal decrees," " election and 
reprobation." The views of Presbyterians are caricatured as 
follows : " The doctrine is, that G-od decreed" — " in the sense 
of originator, author and cause" — "whatsoever comes to 
pass" — "each particular sin of every man." "Murder, rob- 
bery, blasphemy, &c." — " they could no more avoid these 
crimes, than resist the fiat of Omnipotence" — "their creation 
was in order to their sins." * We have selected these items 
as furnishing a comparatively mild statement of our views, 
as Messrs. Simpson and Foster understand them. 

The quotations you profess to make from certain authors, 
in order to fasten upon our church this and similar blas- 
phemy, have already been exposed in part ; and, in general, are 
much in the style of your favorite tract: "Dialogue between 
a Predestinarian and his friend." As a minute examination 
* Objections to Calvinism, p. 31. 

7* 



78 DIFFICULTIES OF ABMINIANISM. Let. V. 

of the extracts professedly given by "Wesley, the author of 
that tract, will he found in the Appendix, we refer the reader 
to it, for fair specimens of Arminian accuracy and reliable- 
ness in matters of this sort. 

The great theological work of Calvin, " the Institutes," 
has always been one of the principal magazines whence have 
been drawn these weapons of Arminian warfare. Yet in 
publishing this work, our Board of Publication, as we have 
shown, make several distinct exceptions to his views, espe- 
cially on Reprobation. Even admitting, therefore, what is 
far from the truth, that Calvin's views are correctly stated by 
our Arminian brethren, how absurd in them to employ hun- 
dreds of pages in contending with such "aman of straw I" If 
any body could be found in any church under heaven, will- 
ing to father the sentiments which the Bishop charges upon us, 
Mr. Foster's book might possibly be of some use in that partic- 
ular Quarter I But, as the matter now stands, every well 
informed Presbyterian will feel only amazement, that so much 
good paper and ink have been worse than wasted in battling 
with a pure figment. We repeat, the Supralapsarian theory, 
grossly caricatured as it is in these " Objections to Calvin- 
ism," is not the scheme of doctrine held by the Presbyterian 
church. It cannot be questioned that Turretine, John Owen, 
Jonathan Edwards, and a host of other Calvinists, have al- 
ways been admitted, even by Arminians, to be men of the 
first order of genius. And they all agree that such repre- 
sentations of our doctrines as we have quoted from your 
" Objections," are calumnies — that "G-od is not, and cannot 
he, the author of sin ;" and they express with Calvin their 
" deep abhorrence of such blasphemy." * No wonder, there- 
fore, that in attempting to fasten such blasphemous senti- 
ments upon Presbyterians, the Rev. R. S. Foster finds "great 
confusion, perplexity and contradiction" in the Calvinistic 
doctrine ) but he humbly hopes it will not be charged to his 
* Calvin's Letter to Bullinger, January, 1552. 



Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 79 

" willful blindness !" * No, we rather think Mr. F. did the 
best he could. But intelligent men will be apt to suspect 
that Mr. F. has imagined " contradictions/' only because he 
was incapable of comprehending the scheme of Calvinism — 
of tracing its logical relations, or perceiving its legitimate 
results. 

With these preliminary remarks, we take up a second source 
of Arminian Difficulties — that mysterious perfection of the 
Divine nature, according to which " known unto G od are all 
his works from the foundation of the world. " 

II. The Difficulties of Arminian Methodism in con- 
nection WITH THE DOCTRINE OF DlVINE FOREKNOW- 
LEDGE. 

The Foreknowledge of God seems never to have been a 
favorite in the body of divinity current among Arminians. 
Long before the days of Wesley, such early anti-Calvinists 
as Episcopius and others, called it " a troublesome question" 
— " a thing disputable, whether there be any such thing or 
not, though possibly it may be ascribed to God" — they say, 
that " it were better it were quite exploded, because the dif- 
ficulties that attend it can scarcely be reconciled with man's 
liberty" — and that " it seems rather to be invented to cru- 
cify poor mortals than to be of any moment in religion." f 
So also, Vorstius, another great prophet of their own, affirms 
" that God oft times feareth, suspecteth, and prudently con- 
jectureth that this or that evil may arise" — and others, " that 
God doth often intend what he doth not foresee will come to 
pass." To such daring extremes were these men driven in 
their zeal to set aside the doctrine of Predestination. 

" This troublesome question," appears also to have given 
no small annoyance to Mr. Wesley. He seems to have con- 

* Objections, p. 29. 

f Dr. Owen's " Display of Arminianisni," p. 71. Tho original Latin is 
there quoted. 






80 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. 

founded Foreknowledge with Omniscience. In his sermon 
on Predestination he says, " If we speak properly, there is 
no such thing as Foreknowledge or After-knowledge in God" 
— and one of his modern disciples adds doubtfully, "If we 
may apply the term Foreknowledge to the Deity." We are 
disposed, however, to think that Peter spoke quite as "prop- 
erly" as either, when he said "with the eleven," "Him being 
delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of 
God, ye have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified 
and slain." And again, 1 Pet. 1:2, " Elect according to 
the foreknowledge of God the Father," &c. The founder of 
Methodism had sufficient discernment to perceive, that the 
fact of the Divine mind comprehending all time and all eter- 
nity at one glance, and as present in one view, does not in 
the least relieve the difficulties which beset the subject of 
Foreknowledge. Hence in writing to Dr. Robertson, in an- 
swer to the inquiry, " How is God's foreknowledge consist- 
ent with our freedom V he candidly replies, " I cannot tell." * 
And in his essay on Original Sin he says, " My understand- 
ing can no more fathom this deep (how God produces the 
nature which is sinful without willing sin), than reconcile 
man's free will with the foreknowledge of God." f 

The atheistical sentiments above quoted from the early 
Arminians, we have no right to charge upon Bishop S. and 
his brethren, unless they avow them. Nor will Christian 
charity permit us to accuse them of " duplicity " and " arti- 
fice," because they do not print and preach such " strictly 
logical" inferences from their avowed principles. J These 
logical perplexities, however, which candor and fairness have 
extorted, including those from Wesley, are important. It is 
well known that it is a common contrivance of his followers 

* Misc. Works, vol. iii. p. 219. 
f Ibid, vol. ii. p. 277. 

'I We leave such carnal weapons to Bishop S. and his brethren who have 
published such tracts as "Duplicity Exposed," &c. &c. 



Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 81 

to decry and denounce Calvinism on this identical ground. 
" It is impossible," they say, " to reconcile the doctrine of 
decrees with man's freedom ; " and they are exceedingly 
abundant in pointing out the dreadful consequences which 
flow from this alleged fact, and in showing that all Presby- 
terians should at once forsake the faith of their fathers, and 
come over to the Arminian camp. But if we were to admit 
their allegations against our system to be true to the full ex- 
tent, yet the question returns — " What advantage hath the 
Arminian ? or what profit is there in Methodism ? " Has 
not your " great master of logic," as you call him, declared 
that he "cannot tell" how your own doctrine of Fore- 
knowledge can be reconciled with our freedom ? First 
cast out this beam from your own eye, and then shall you 
see clearly to extract the mote from ours. Honestly show us 
that you hold and teach only doctrines which can be main- 
tained consistently with human liberty, and then we will be- 
lieve you sincere, when you attempt to preach down Calvinism 
as destructive to the doctrine of man's freedom and account- 
ability. 

The Scriptures are so express, and the prophecies are so 
plain and form so essential a feature of Divine revelation, 
that modern Arminians have not been able to resist the over- 
whelming evidence of the infinite foreknowledge of G-od. 
Hence, in a leading tract they say — " To know is so essential 
to Gi-od, that the moment he ceases to know all that is, will be, 
or might be, under any possible circumstances, he ceases to be 
God" * They evidently feel, however, that such a statement 
is attended with very serious embarrassments. " Should it 
be asked," inquires another of their ablest writers, " how 
entire freedom of action agrees with this knowledge, I answer, 
I cannot tell." "The plain truth is, the subject is too far 
removed from the province of our faculties and the sphere of 
human science, &c." " We must rest till it shall please God 
* Fisk on Predest. and Election. 



82 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIAXISM. Let. V. 

to develope what has been hitherto locked up in the treasury 
of eternal wisdom." * 

The G-ordian knot which our Arminian brethren find so 
perplexing, was readily solved, or rather, was rudely cut by 
Socinus and his followers, thus : " G-od made no other decree 
than that of saving such as believe, obey and submit to the 
gospel. These things depend on the human will — what de- 
pends on the will is uncertain : an uncertain object cannot 
be an object of certain knowledge : G-od therefore cannot cer- 
tainly foresee whether my condition will be eternally happy 
or otherwise/' f 

Most Arminians of the present day will agree with us that 
this is stark atheism ! "Who can believe in a God who every 
day is learning something new — who is ignorant to-day of 
what will occur to-morrow ? 

Again: In speaking of "human or contingent actions,' ' 
the Methodist Magazine \ doubtfully remarks — (i If God 
foresee or foreknow them at all, he sees them just as they 
are." " He sees at the same time what class of motives or 
principles will preponderate," &c. Exactly so — but where 
did the reviewer learn that the Calvinistic system " con- 
founds" — "makes no distinction between" "foreknowledge 
and decree ? " Any Calvinist who should broach such an 
absurdity, would hardly be considered a fit candidate for a 
class in a Sabbath school. There are indeed some Methodist 
authors who affect to see no difficulty in reconciling freedom 
and foreknowledge. Mr. Watson, however, candidly admits 
that Ct this forms a difficulty " — for example, "how to recon- 
cile the Divine warnings, exhortations and other means adopted 
to prevent the destruction of individuals, with the certain 
foresight of that terrible result." "In the case of man," he 
acknowledges, " the infallible prescience or foreknowledge of 

* Metli. Mag. vol. iii. p. 13. 
f Saurin, vol. ii. p. 10S. 
X For July, 1839. 



Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION* S j 

failure would, in many (all ?) cases, paralyze all effort." * 
Nothing was ever more truly said — and if he had only 
recalled to mind, that the Arminian holds it as an essential 
feature of his scheme, necessary to shield the Divine char- 
acter from foul and blasphemous aspersions — (viz. u insin- 
cerity/' "crocodile tears," &c.) that the omniscient God 
designed, planned, purposed the salvation of such lost ones 
and expended the most astonishing and inconceivable means 
and efforts to secure this end, even the incarnation and suffer- 
ings and death of his eternal Son — if Mr. Watson had 
seriously contemplated how unworthy a reflection it casts 
upon the all-wise G-od, to employ all these infinite and un- 
speakable means to secure a result which was already infi- 
nitely certain NOT TO TAKE PLACE — it might have led him 
wisely to caution his Methodist brethren against the suppo- 
sition that their scheme of doctrine is the privileged Goshen 
of light, while all around hangs Egyptian darkness ! We 
desire to speak it with the deepest reverence for the Divine 
character, but it ought not to be disguised that Arminianism 
in this aspect of the system, represents the all-wise Saviour 
as suffering and dying — for what? why, with a design or 
intention to disappoint his own infallible foreknowledge ! 
Ahsit blasjphemia ! The Socinian boldly cuts this knot — 
" God cannot certainly foresee man's voluntary actions or his 
destiny ! " 

The pressure which all intelligent Arminians feel at this 
point of their system, is not obscurely indicated by their 
unavailing struggles to relieve it from its difficulties. 

" Certainty," says Watson, " is no quality of an action at 
all ) it exists properly in the mind foreseeing and not in the 
action foreseen." " When, therefore, it is said, what God 

* Theol. Inst, part 2, ch. 4. The extreme caution of some Arminian 
authors on this subject, is curious: "Did not God foreknow who would 
reject the gospel and ho lost? Yfe presume he did!" Porter's Com- 
pendium, p. 231. 



84 . DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. 

foresees will certainly happen, nothing more can be reasonably 
meant than that He is certain that it will happen ) so that we 
must not transfer the certainty from God to the action itself." 

This is ingenious, but sophistical. It is not true, as Wat- 
son affirms, that the proposition — " What God foresees will 
certainly happen" — can mean no more than that He is cer- 
tain it will happen. That is all that the proposition refers to 
God — but a very little reflection will satisfy any one that 
the terms have also a direct reference to the nature and exist- 
ence of the action itself. " Certainty" is as really "a quality 
of an action," as uncertainty or contingency, which are es- 
sential to the notion of Arminian liberty. 

To make this obvious, we will take the example of David's 
murder in " the matter of Uriah." No one will question 
that now that wicked act is infallibly certain — a fixed fact, 
so that the proposition which affirms its past existence, is in- 
fallibly true ; so true that no mathematical axiom can be 
more so ; true as that twice two are not twenty ; and true 
apart from the perception of its truth by any mind. This 
we think no Arminian will hesitate to concede. 

But there was a period, a thousand or ten thousand years 
before David's crime, when it was just as infallibly known to 
the Infinite mind, as it is now. No one can doubt this. At 
that period, the proposition which affirmed the future exist- 
ence of David's act of murder was just as infallibly true, 
apart from any perception of its truth, as the other which 
now affirms its past existence. And if we suppose God to 
have communicated the knowledge of that act to the angels 
a thousand years before it took place, they would have felt 
that its certainty was an infallible feature of David's exist- 
ence, but in no way dependent on their perception of the 
truth — in other words, its certainty of future existence be- 
longed to the act, not to their mental perception of the act. 
And if, for any period within the one thousand years antece- 
dent to David's existence, we were to adopt Dr. Clarke's no- 



Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 85 

tion — suppose it possible for the Divine Being, say for twenty- 
four hours, " to choose not to foreknow " David's crime, would 
there he no certainty of its future existence for the same 
length of time? Or now that the act is done, suppose it 
possible that G-od for one year should " choose not to know " 
it, would its certainty then cease? So it would seem, if 
Watson is correct. These statements, if we mistake not, 
show conclusively that there is a certainty of existence and 
of truth, which belongs to morals as well as mathematics, 
and which is altogether distinct from the certainty of percep- 
tion in the mind which conceives the truth or foresees a fu- 
ture moral act, so that the certainty belongs not so much to 
the mind as to the act itself. 

It appears demonstrable, therefore, that the infallible fore- 
knowledge of Grod implies the infallible certainty of the 
future existence of that which is foreknown. Of course, we 
cannot suppose the future volitions of moral agents, known 
as they are to God with perfect distinctness and with all 
their circumstances, to be uncertain. This would be to say 
that he certainly knows an event will infallibly be, while at 
the same time he knows it to be so uncertain that it may not 
he, i. e. he knows that he may be mistaken ! In other words, 
he knows the proposition which affirms the future existence 
of an event, to be certainly true ; and yet he knows the same 
proposition to be so uncertain that it may be untrue ! If 
the event be indeed uncertain that is known to the Divine 
mind, how then can he know it to be certainly future ? Of' 
course, his foreknowledge would be mere conjecture ! For 
how can he know the certainty of an event, and at the same 
time know its uncertainty ? 

But, replies the Arminian, " Grod's foreknowledge can have 
no more influence in causing an event, say the sinner's im- 
penitence and ruin, than our after-knowledge." " To foresee 
an event does not cause it to take place." * Very true ; no 
* Componclium of Metli. p. 222. Meth. Mag. July, 1S39- 



86 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. 

Presbyterian will dispute that point. Foreknowledge in God 
jyroves, not causes, the certainty of the event foreknown. All 
infallible knowledge, whether it be foreknowledge or after- 
knowledge, demonstrates the thing known to be infallibly 
certain, i. e. that the event, action, volition, perfectly does 
or will correspond with the knowledge. Such is the infallible 
truth in the case. Knowledge is founded in certainty ; but 
the cause of the certainty is another matter, and not now 
under consideration. We maintain, and we trust have proved, 
that the Arminian doctrine of infinite foreknowledge in God, 
carries with it and demonstrates the infallible certainty of all 
the future volitions and moral conduct of men ; unless God 
may mistake and his knowledge be mere conjecture. The 
same certainty attends the doctrine of Decrees ; they render 
the free evil actions of men certain, but exert no causative 
or compulsory influence. Man, as a moral agent, performs 
all his actions in -connection with the all-wise and perfectp&m 
of the Infinite One. But God is not the author of his evil 
actions, except as before explained by Wesley, viz. "He sup- 
plies the power whereby the sinful action is done. God, 
therefore/' he adds, "produces the action which is sinful. It 
is his work and his will (for he works nothing but what he 
wills). And yet the sinfulness of the action is neither his 
worlc nor will." * This is sound Calvinism, understanding 
by the term " will" God's efficient design or purpose. Yet 
we cannot deny, if we believe the Scriptures, that God also 
restrains, bounds, governs and directs the evil actions of the 
wicked for the wisest and holiest ends and objects; although 
they think not so, but have far other objects in view. Thus, 
in the case of the crucifixion of Christ — "he was delivered 
by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ; yet 
was by wicked hands crucified and slain." 

Take another view of the connection of foreknowledge with 
the certainty of future events. There must be a certainty in 
* Original Sin, "Works, vol. ii. p. 277. 






Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 87 

things themselves, to be the ground of their being certainly 
known. For how is it possible infallibly to know or discern 
the certainty of things or events, if there be no certainty in 
those events to form the ground of this certain knowledge ? 
We admit, therefore, that " the Divine foreknowledge does 
not cause the event •" and taking Dr. Fisk's view, that " Grod 
knows an event, because it is certain" * this only more plainly 
proves the certainty of that event. "It demonstrates the 
existence of the event to be so settled, that it is as if it had 
already been, inasmuch as in effect it already exists ; it has 
already had actual influence and efficiency, viz. to produce the 
effect of infallible 'prescience. And as the effect supposes 
the cause, it is as if the event had already an existence. "f 
Thus, then, if " God knows events because they are certain" 
as Dr. Fisk affirms, then he knows all the future volitions 
and free acts of men, " because they are certain ;" of course, 
God's infallible foreknowledge proves or rather assumes that 
those volitions are infallibly certain to take place. But here 
Dr. F. comes in direct conflict with Watson, who says : " We 
must not transfer the certainty from God to the action itself 
* * "in any sense." J 

Much of the obscurity and perplexity which Arminians 
find in this subject, is owing to their peculiar notions of the 
true nature of liberty. They say freedom implies a self- 
determining power, by which the mind in the exercise of 
choice, or the faculty of willing, determines its own acts ; and 
this exercise of self-determination is essential to the freedom 
of the act. But this self-determining exercise of will, is 
itself an act of will ; and in order to be free it must also flow 
from a previous exercise of self-determination, and that from 
a previous self-determination, and so on ad infinitum. So 
that if we ascend to the first free act, there must still be 

* Discourse on Predest. p. 6. Tract No. 131. 
f Edwards on the Will, part 2, sec. 12. 
£ Theol. Inst. vol. ii. p. 430. 



88 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMIXIANISM. Let. V. 

a self-determination, or free act of the will, to make that first 
act a free act ; which involves the contradiction of an act of 
the will before the first act. 

So also, their strange notion that liberty of the will implies 
indifference, or entire freedom from antecedent bias. Of 
course, the idea of the mind acting from its views of the 
strongest reasons of choice, its perceptions of the greatest 
good, and being directed by such motives as these in its 
choice, is with them absurd ; for they hold that any bias of 
this sort destroys freedom ! The mind must be able by some 
act or exertion of its inherent power, to put itself in a state 
of indifference ; and then in that state it can perform free acts, 
i. e. it can choose against its perception of the strongest rea- 
sons, or without any reasons, or any other bias. But this is 
surely very self-contradictory; for President Edwards has 
clearly demonstrated that as every free act must be performed 
in a state of freedom, the Arminian notion that freedom of 
the will implies indifference, leads to the gross absurdity that 
the soul chooses one thing rather than another, at the very 
time that it has no preference or choice ; or that there may 
be choice, while there is no choice. 

Edwards has also demonstrated that the idea of contingence 
as understood by Arminians to belong to the actions of men, 
excludes all connection between cause and effect (in reference 
to this matter), and supposes many events to take place with- 
out any ground or reason of their occurring rather than their 
not occurring. And that to suppose the Divine Being to 
have infallible foreknowledge of the volitions of men, while 
there is no ground or reason of their existence rather than 
their non-existence, is to suppose him to know without evi- 
dence, or to know a thing certainly which is uncertain ; or 
to know the certainty of an event, while at the same time he 
knows its uncertainty ! Truly, it is not wonderful that Wes- 
ley " could not tell" how to reconcile foreknowledge with this 
strange mass of contradictions. 



Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 89 

Again : "If an event be certainly foreknown, it must have a 
certain future existence, of which certain existence there 
must be some reason or ground. For as every free agent has 
the liberty of. acting or not, or of performing a different 
action from the one which he eventually performs, if there 
existed no reason why the one took place and not the other, 
all knowledge of the action before it occurs is necessarily 
excluded. It would be to suppose knowledge without the 
least foundation for that knowledge in the object. God can- 
not know that something exists where there is nothing. 
God cannot see that an effect, yet future, will certainly be pro- 
duced, if he does not know any cause of its existence." (Bib. 
Repertory, vol. iii. 1831.) If it be alleged that there is no 
other ground or reason of the future existence of the event 
necessary to be supposed, in order to infallible foreknowledge, 
than the free agency of the creature, it is the same as to say 
that it is infallibly known that a creature will choose or 
prefer one course of action before another, because he is at 
liberty to choose either ; or, in other words, that he will cer- 
tainly, in a given case, choose to act in a particular manner, 
because he is at perfect liberty to choose to act in the directly 
opposite manner, which is absurd- If there be such a thing 
as Arminian liberty, it is obvious, therefore, that there can 
be no such attribute of the Divine mind, as infallible and 
universal foreknowledge. If, on the other hand, we admit 
with the Scriptures the doctrine of Foreknowledge, it destroys 
for ever the baseless fabric of Arminian freedom. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that the doctrine of Fore- 
knowledge should be in no very good odor with our Method- 
ist brethren. This is inferrible, among other reasons, from 
the fact, that their Articles and Book of Discipline are 
entirely silent upon the subject; nor is it any where noticed 
in a volume of 240 pages, professing to be an exhibition of 
the faith of Christians. It is said, indeed, that the book 
mentions the Divine wisdom, which includes fore*;**-- ' 
8* 



90 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. 

but if men who " spake as they were moved by the Holy 
G-host" make a distinction between these perfections of G-od, 
and give to each its separate place and prominence in their 
system, it would be both safe and modest not to attempt to 
improve upon their divinity. 

Another most conclusive proof that Arminians are sorely 
perplexed with such subjects as Foreknowledge, freedom 
the will, &c. is found in their misstatements of the views of 
Calvinists. For example, "Watson, one of their best informed 
writers, expounds the views of President Edwards as follows : 
"The notion inculcated is, that motives influence the will, 
just as an additional weight thrown into an even scale poises 
it and inclines the beam. This," he adds, " is the favorite 
metaphor of the necessitarians, * * * representing the 
will to be as passive as the balance; or in other words, * * 
annihilating the distinction between mind and matter."* 
And in destroying this baseless fabric of his own raising, he 
speaks of "the mind being obliged to determine by the 
strongest motive, as the beam is to incline by the heaviest 
weight" But this is a gross caricature of Edwards' views. 
11 All allow" says Edwards, "that natural (or physical) im- 
possibility wholly excuses. * * * As natural impossi- 
bility wholly excuses and excludes all blame, so the nearer 
the difficulty approaches to impossibility, the nearer the person 
is to blanielessness." f These and similar statements stand 
on the page next to that where he uses the illustration of the 
scale or balance. He supposes it to be " intelligent," and 
employs it merely to explain by the metaphor of weights 
cast into the scale, how a greater or less degree of physical 
difficulty implies a greater or less degree of blamelessness ! 
Thus, the doctrine of Edwards is plainly this : that if there 
were any such physical necessity or force exerted upon the 
will, as the weight upon the balance, man would be wholly 

* Inst. vol. ii. p. 440. 

f On the Will, part 3, sec. 3. 



Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 91 

without blame I Yet Watson has the hardihood to charge 
him with the monstrous notion that the will is governed by 
motives, just as the material scale is moved by weights ! Was 
there ever a more gross and palpable misstatement ? 

Following such a brilliant example, Messrs. Simpson and 
Foster use a similar illustration : " The water must run 
through the water-course; the wheel must turn under the 
force of the current. * * * The movements of the mind 
are as absolutely fixed and rigidly necessary as the movements 
of the material creation, * * * when Omnipotence urges 
it forward ! " * This, Arminians say, is the Calvinistic and 
Edwardean doctrine of the influence of motives upon the will ! 
Yet, as we have just shown, and as any person of common 
sense may read for himself, President Edwards argues at 
length to prove that such a doctrine entirely excuses the sinner 
from blame ! f And even Dr. Fisk takes up the same tale : 
" Dr. Edwards," he tells us, " compares our volitions to the 
vibrations of a scale beam. * * * What is this but 
teaching that motions of mind are governed by the same 
fixed laws as those of matter, and that volitions are perfectly 
mechanical states of mind." J Thus they charge upon Ed- 
wards the very doctrine which he laboriously refutes ; and 
then boast over it, as though they had achieved a great victory ! 

But what are these wonderful and almost omnipotent things 
called motives, which, we are told, work the mind or will, as 
the Almighty Power moves the material creation ? Watson 
says they are u reasons of choice, views and conceptions of 
things in the mind, * * * in consideration of which 
the mind itself wills and determines." § But if this defini- 
tion be correct — and it is sufficiently so for all practical pur- 
poses — how is it possible the mind or will should be " worked 

* Objections, <fec. pp. 237, 238. 

-f- See the part and section before quoted. 

% Fisk, quoted by Foster, p. 212. 

§ Institutes, vol. ii. p. 440. 



92 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. 

as a machine " by its own " reasons of choice, its views and 
conceptions of things ? " For example, an impenitent person 
chooses a present wordly good in preference to future eternal 
happiness, which is distant and not so certainly in his power. 
His " views and conceptions " of the present good are such 
that, like the wine cup of the intemperate, they present to 
his mind stronger "reasons of choice" than the distant 
future presents. Of course he chooses the present good, and 
refuses the future happiness. But is there any thing in this 
mental operation bearing the most distant resemblance to the 
" vibratory movement of a balance " under the motive power 
of a weight ? or any thing like the power of Omnipotence 
urging the will to act ? How strange the misrepresentation ! 
Arminians must be hard pressed in argument before they de- 
scend to such subterfuges. 

A similar series of misstatements is attached to the doctrine 
of " necessity," as held and taught by Calvinists, in its rela- 
tions to Divine Foreknowledge. Thus we are told — "The 
connection between the volition and the strongest motive is 
as absolute and necessary as the connection between any 
cause (even the will of G-od,) and its effect." And we have 
large discourse about " the mind whose determinations are 
absolutely fixed by the force of motives" — " required to 
overcome Omnipotence itself," which is the cause of the 
necessity — "a doctrine of necessity, which requires man to do 
what is absolutely impossible — what G-od himself cannot do, 
for He cannot work impossibilities." * And even Bishop 
Simpson, in his introduction to Foster's work, speaks of the 
" doctrine of necessity " as opposed to " the freedom of the 
human will, &c." 

But what says President Edwards in defining the term ne- 
cessity ? As used by himself and other Calvinists in these 
discussions, he expressly says he means " nothing different 
from certainty." And he adds : " I speak not now of the 
* Foster's Objections, chap. 8, and in numerous other places. 



Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 93 

certainty of knowledge, but the certainty that is in things 
themselves, which is the foundation of the certainty of 
knowledge ; or that (certainty) wherein lies the ground of 
the infallible truth of the proposition which affirms them." * 
But according to this definition, every prophecy of the 
Scriptures produces, or at least proves the infallible necessity 
(i. e. certainty,) of the event predicted ? Such were the 
incarnation, sufferings and death of Christ, &c. All these 
events were infallibly necessary, or certain to take place, as 
Edwards and other Calvinists understand the term. Armin- 
ians themselves dare not question the truth of these state- 
ments. 

But how do such authors as Watson, Fisk, Simpson and 
Foster dispose of such facts as these ? Here, for example, is 
a formal definition given by Edwards at the opening of his 
immortal work on the Will, and observed cautiously through- 
out, whenever he has occasion to speak of necessity. How 
do these Arminians escape from such a predicament and man- 
age to patch up their argument ? Why, they say Edwards 
and other Calvinists must mean by necessity u a power not 
different from the law of gravitation or magnetic attraction " 
— "from the (Calvinistic) theory, inertia becomes the law 
of mind as of matter." " Fate runs through all." Such, 
they say, " is the supreme controlling power of Dr. Edwards 
and his followers." f So that when Edwards demonstrates 
that the sufferings and death of Christ, and other great events 
predicted in the Scriptures, were necessary, or certain to take 
place, these Arminians say he meant they were predicted to 
take place under some such influence as the law of gravitation, 
some physical force or compulsion, which the Jews, who, 
" with wicked hands, crucified and slew the Lord of 
glory," could no more resist than they could resist the laws 
of the planetary worlds ! Did human weakness ever concoct 

* On the Will, part 1, sec. 3. 

f Objections to Calvinism, p. 240, et alibi. 



94 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. 

a more humiliating tissue of strange blunders ! And to 
crown the whole, these Arminians have published, and thus 
sanctioned, Dr. Fisk's statements — " whatever Grod fore- 
knows will undoubtedly (or certainly) come to pass." " It 
is not at all difficult to conceive how the certainty of an 
event can beget knowledge " (or foreknowledge). " G-od 
knows an event to be certain because it is certain." * Thus 
they have unwittingly incorporated in their creed the very 
" doctrine of necessity " (or certainty) which is so carefully 
denned by Edwards. Edwards himself does not state more 
clearly than Dr. Fisk the infallible future certainty (or ne- 
cessity) of all foreknown events, including all the acts of 
the human will ! 

To render these Arminian misstatements the more wonder- 
ful, Edwards not only defines with great care the Calvinistic 
use of the term necessity, in discussions about the will, but he 
largely explains the distinction between natural (or physical) 
necessity and moral necessity. So far from representing the 
will to be " passive as the material balance," "obliged to deter- 
mine by the heaviest weights," &c. as Watson and others 
allege, he minutely defines what Calvinists mean by moral 
causes, such as " the strength of inclination, habits and dis- 
positions of the heart, moral motives and inducements" — 
and he particularly distinguishes this sort of certainty of 
effect and result, from " the natural necessity by which men's 
bodies move downward when not supported." "|* Yet these 
Arminian writers charge him with holding a necessity lt not 
different from that arising from the law of gravitation" — the 
very thing which he cautiously and expressly disclaims ! 

To make his meaning most evident, Edwards uses such 
illustrations as these : " A child of great love and duty to 
his parents, may have a moral inability to kill his father ; or 
a woman of virtue to prostitute herself to her slave." In 

* Meth. Tract, No. 131, pp. 7, 8. 
f On the Will, part 1, sec. 4. 



Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 95 

these cases they act under what he means by " a moral neces- 
sity/' i. e. a certainty of such results under such circumstances 
— a certainty of such effects from such causes. " It cannot 
be truly said, according to the ordinary use of language" 
adds Edwards, " that a malicious man, let him be never so 
malicious, cannot hold his hand from striking; or that a 
. drunkard, let his appetite be never so strong, cannot keep the 
cup from his mouth." These examples are of external acts 
— but he adds, " it is more evidently false that such person 
is unable to exert the acts of the will, * * for the very 
willing is the doing. * * In these mental acts, to ascribe 
the non-performance to the want of power or ability is not 
just, * * for he has the faculties of mind and a capacity 
of nature, and every thing else sufficient but a disposition — 
nothing is wanting but a will," or a willingness in order to 
the mental act. Is this the same as to say that man lies 
under a necessity like that which " sways the beam when 
moved by the heaviest weight ? " If a man hates his neigh- 
bor so bitterly that he cannot love him, is he therefore a mere 
machine — is he excusable, just as if he were impelled by the 
hand of Omnipotence — excusable, just as really as the sinking 
of the balance under the weight ? This is Arminian doctrine, 
but not that of Calvinists. 

Edwards still more fully explains his meaning when he 
comes to speak of Foreknowledge. One of his sections bears 
the title : " Foreknowledge infers necessity." " I allow," 
he says, "that mere knowledge does not affect the thing 
known to make it more certain ; but I say, it supposes and 
proves the thing to be already both future and certain." 
Again : " There must be a certainty in things themselves, 
before they are certainly known; or, which is the same thing, 
known to be certain." This is the kind of " necessity" 
which he advocates, viz. the certainly of events. How it 
ever entered the brain of Arminians to charge him and other 
Calvinists with teaching a "necessity" such as moves the 



96 DIFFICULTIES OF AltMINIANISM. Let. V. 

planets in their orbits, is a mystery which we leave others 
fully to explain. What will not men sometimes do, when 
hard pressed in argument ! 

But the embarrassments felt by Arminians when they are 
pressed with the doctrine of Divine Foreknowledge, are abun- 
dantly evident in the curious figment adopted by Dr. Adam 
Clarke, the commentator. In his headlong zeal to extermi- 
nate the doctrine of Predestination, he was forced into the 
denial of a Divine attribute every where taught in the Scrip- 
tures. Adopting the idea of Chevalier Ramsey, Dr. Clarke 
recommends to his brethren a new and easy theory of fore- 
knowledge. According to his view, Grod makes a distinction 
in the universe of knowable things, between those which he 
will foreknow, and those of which he will choose to remain 
ignorant. Among the latter, Dr. Clarke places the free ac- 
tions of intelligent moral agents. Grod resolves not to fore- 
know these. Thus it seems, that ignorance is a high perfec- 
tion of an infinite Being, without which it is impossible, 
according to the Dr. to govern the moral universe ! Dr. C. 
felt that the commonly received views of foreknowledge are 
inconsistent with the denial of the doctrine of predestination, 
and that most of the objections made to the latter, lie with 
equal weight against the former. Hence the necessity of de- 
vising some mode of escaping the difficulties, which press 
upon the admission of foreknowledge with the rejection of 
predestination. 

Mr. Watson and his brethren had too much shrewdness to 
adopt this weak expedient. They saw at once, that it does 
not meet the real difficulty of the case, viz. " to reconcile the 
Divine prescience and the free actions of men." " For," 
argues Watson, " some contingent actions for which men 
have been made accountable, we are sure have been foretold 
by the Holy Spirit speaking in the prophets; and if the 
freedom of man can be reconciled with the prescience of Grod 
in these cases, why not in all ?" Most forcibly and logically 



Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 07 

said. Even if we were to conclude with Dr. Clarke, that it 
is consistent with the perfections of God to shut his eyes that 
he may not see the free actions of men, and thus impose 
upon himself voluntary ignorance, this strange supposition 
would bring no aid to Arminianism in the midst of her trials 
and perplexities. 

A simple statement of undeniable truth will place this sub- 
ject in its proper light. The moral actions of men are fore- 
known of God hundreds of years before they take place. This 
no one can doubt who believes the Scriptures. The conduct of 
men, whether good or evil, is infallibly foreknown therefore, 
unless the knowledge of God be mere conjecture. It is just as 
certain, therefore, that it will agree with the Divine foreknow- 
ledge, and be precisely what it is known to be, as it is certain 
God will not and cannot mistake. Here then is a certainty* 
as infallible as any that grows out of predestination. If we 
reject one of these, on this account, we must, to be consist- 
ent, reject both. But to deny the Divine prescience is to 
deny God. Thus does Methodism, in her rash haste, direct 
her course upon the very brink of the dark abyss of atheism. 

% <( if it t^ alleged that the purpose influences the action, and therefore 
there is a -wide difference, we answer, that if the Divine purpose — as we 
maintain — has no other influence on the action than to render it certain, 
there is no difference at all, in this respect, between the theories of fore- 
knowledge and decree ; for on some account and for some reason, the thing 
is as certain as it can be on the theory of mere foreknowledge." — Biblical 
Repertory, vol. iii. No. 2. 

9 



98 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VI. 

LETTER VI. 

FOREKNOWLEDGE— FREDESTINATION. 

Rev. Sir — The subject of the second chapter* of the 
" Objections to Calvinism" is " Eternal Decrees." It would 
be a very wrong inference from this, that Arminians reject 
the doctrine of " eternal decrees." Even Bishop Simpson 
believes that God will judge the world, and say to the right- 
eous on his right hand : " Come, ye blessed ;" and to the 
wicked at the left, "Depart, ye cursed." If so, when did the 
omniscient God first form the design or purpose thus to judge 
the world ? Was it in time, or from eternity ? Obviously 
the latter, as even the Bishop will concede. "For," sayg 
Watson, " what the creature will do (in order to judgment) 
is known beforehand with a perfect prescience; and what 
God has determined (or decreed) to do in consequence, is 
made apparent by what he actually does, which is with him 
no new, no sudden thought, but known and purposed from 
eternity in view of the actual circumstances." f Then here 
is an " eternal decree" to judge the world, to acquit and save 
one part, a number of persons infallibly known to God, and 
to condemn the rest. 

But what is still more surprising, Arminians also teach 
" eternal decrees" of " election and reprobation !" Here is 
the proof: "Obedient, persevering believers," says Fletcher, 
"are God's elect in the particidar and full sense of the word, 
being elected to the reward of eternal life in glory." But may 
not some of these elect ones perish ? Fletcher answers : 
"We grant that none of these peculiar elect shall ever perish, 

* On the title-page, Mr. Foster says his book is "a series of Letters 
to Rev. N. L. Rice, D. D." But there is no such thing as a letter in the 
eolurne. There are eight chapters and an appendix, but no "letters." 

f Inst, part 2, chap. 23. 



Let. VI. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 99 

though they would have perished, if they had not been faith- 
ful unto death. 7 ' Yery well; that is sound Calvinism — the 
means necessary to the end. But is the number of these 
elect so certain that it cannot be increased or diminished? 
" We allow," answers Fletcher, " that with respect to God's 
foreknowledge and omniscience their number is certain."* 
But if " their number is certain in God's foreknowledge and 
omniscience," it cannot be uncertain in the eternal decree 
to judge the world, which the Bishop, following Watson, 
must hold and teach. Hence it follows, on the authority of 
Watson, Fletcher, Bishop Simpson and the General Confer- 
ence, that u the number of the elect is certain," and, of course, 
will be the same at the judgment as it was known to be from 
eternity, unless God may be mistaken in his " foreknow- 
ledge !" Fletcher and Watson are certainly such good 
authority in these matters, that Bishop Simpson will not re- 
pudiate it. 

But as Mr. Foster's " Objections" are confined almost ex- 
clusively to "the decree of reprobation," who would ever 
suspect the Bishop and his Arminian brethren of maintain- 
ing this " horrible decree ?" Yet such is the simple fact, 
which we prove as follows : We turn to the 140th page of 
your volume of " Doctrinal Tracts," published by your Gen- 
eral Conference. Attend to the following quotations : 

" God predestinates or fore-appoints all disobedient unbe- 
lievers to damnation, not without, but according to his fore- 
hnowledge of all their works from the foundation of the 
world." " God, from the foundation of the world, foreknew 
all men's believing or not believing. And according to this 
his foreknowledge (viz. from the foundation of the world, or 
from eternity), he refused or reprobated all disobedient unbe- 
lievers as such, to damnation." On these extracts, I observe, 

1. It is asserted that some men will live and die " disobe- 
dient unbelievers." 

* See his Works, vol. i. p. 399. " Preface to fictitious and genuine Creed." 



100 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VI. 

2. God had a perfect " foreknowledge of all their works 
from the foundation of the world.' ' 

3. It follows that he perfectly foreknew their character, 
names and number : these were certainly known, i. e. immu- 
tably certain, as God could not mistake a single name, or 
miscount a single unit of the precise number of the " disobe- 
dient unbelievers/' who are " fore-appointed to damnation !" 

4. These " disobedient unbelievers," thus infallibly known 
by works, character, names, number, God has "predestinated 
or fore-appointed to damnation." 

5. This " predestination to damnation" of the precise 
" number of disobedient unbelievers," was from eternity, or 
"according to God's foreknowledge of all their works from 
the foundation of the world." 

6. This "fore-appointment or refusal of the exact number 
of disobedient unbelievers;" this decree of reprobation, was 
passed "before they were born," and, of course, "before they 
had done either good or evil." Thus " some men are born 
devoted from the womb to eternal death." 

7. " This eternal decree" (of reprobation) we are told in 
the same volume, page -15, " God will not change and man 
cannot resist !" So that the Arminian decree of Keprobation 
is not only eternal, but irresistible and unchangeable ! 

8. These " disobedient unbelievers" are thus particularly 
and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain 
and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished, 
unless G-od may be mistaken. Thus it is plain, that notwith- 
standing all their outcry against Foreordination, the Bishop 
and his brethren believe and teach the doctrine of " eternal 
decrees" — even the eternal, immutable, irresistible decrees of 
election and reprobation ; according to which " the number 
of the elect is certain as the foreknowledge of God ;" and, of 
course, as the number of those who are elect (or chosen from 
mankind) is certain, so the number of the reprobate (disobe- 
dient unbelievers) must necessarily be equally certain. The 



Let. VI. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 101 

one set cannot be more certain than the other. If, for ex- 
ample, the number to be taken from ten be certainly five , the 
number left will be equally certain to be five. This is plain 
to the humblest understanding. 

Now here the question arises — why are these doctrines of 
eternal, absolute, numerical election and reprobation, never 
heard in Methodist pulpits ? It is not for us to answer so 
difficult a question. We can only conjecture that they are 
afraid to preach thus, lest their people should suspect them 
of going over to Calvinism — which, according to Messrs. 
Foster and Simpson, represents " God as to be contemplated 
only with dread, detestation and abhorrence " — tf a hideous 
compound of cruelty, caprice, duplicity and falsehood." * 

What, then, is Predestination as taught in the Holy Scrip- 
tures, and believed by the Presbyterian church ? It is the 
doctrine of a plan devised and executed by Him who is the 
God of infinite knowledge, wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness 
and truth. Every rational man, when he designs to erect 
some complicated structure, either of matter or mind, pre- 
arranges carefully the whole plan. Just so with the Great 
Architect of the material and moral universe. In this plan 
man occupies the place of a free moral agent, to whom the 
Divine decree secures freedom of action in its highest sense. 
God has ordained that he shall be possessed of liberty, and 
it must be so.*j* But man, created free either to stand or fall, 

, * Objections, &c. pp. 54, 122, &c. &o. &o. We hope to be pardoned for 
soiling our pages with these and similar extracts. Such is the prevailing 
style of the book, and if we quote at all, it is difficult to avoid such 
phraseology. 

f " Could not God from all eternity decree that creatures endued with 
liberty should oxist ; and if this was his purpose, will not the event answer 
to it ? Human liberty, therefore, instead of being destroyed by the decree, 
is established upon an immutable basis. It would be very strange, indeed, 
if the Almighty could not effectually will the existence of a free, voluntary 
act. To suppose the contrary, would be to deny his omnipotence. To say, 
then, that the decree by which the certainty of a free act is secured, violates 
free agoncy, seems very much like a contradiction." Biblical Bepertory. 

9* 



102 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VI. 

abused his liberty by rebelling against God, and lost all that 
renders existence valuable — his moral purity, and his hope 
of immortality. To rescue him from this condition of hope- 
less misery, God has provided a Saviour, who is the " author 
and finisher of the faith " that saves the soul. Every thing 
that a merciful God performs for man's redemption, he before 
determined (or decreed) to do. He becomes the " author and 
finisher of faith " and salvation to those who are delivered 
from hell. He before decreed or determined to become the 
" author and finisher " of their redemption. This is the doc- 
trine of election to eternal life. But when did God first in- 
tend to perform these acts of mercy for fallen men ? Was 
there ever a period when He did not intend to redeem them ? 
Manifestly not. This eternal design, then, or intention, to 
deliver immortal souls from death, by becoming (through 
Christ) the "author and finisher of their faith," holiness 
and salvation, is the eternal decree of predestination to a life 
of endless bliss. 

On the other hand, if fallen man live and die impenitent, 
he fills up the measure of his iniquity, and in the strong lan- 
guage of our Confession, is " doomed to dishonor and wrath 
for his sin" — chap. 3. sec. 7. It is right in the God of 
justice to doom him. It was also right to ordain or deter- 
mine to doom him to wrath "for his sin." It cannot be 
wrong to ordain or determine to do a right thing. Every 
thing which is done by the righteous Rector of the universe, 
He before determined to do. He actually sentences the sin- 
ner to suffer for his sin. He before decreed, ordained, or de- 
termined to do so. And this is the villified and misrepresented 
doctrine of reprobation to eternal death. 

But what is the doctrine of Foreknowledge upon the same 
subject ? God creates man, and places him in a state where 
he infallibly foreknows he will be led by temptation to commit 
sin. Under these circumstances, man will sin as certainly and 
undoubtedly as it is certain the all-knowing God cannot mis- 



Let. VI. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 103 

take. Man is therefore created with an infallible certainty 
.of sinning against God. His righteous retribution is also 
infallibly foreknown. Man will infallibly sin, and God will 
infallibly doom him to wrath for his sin. All this, in the 
case of every finally impenitent sinner, was as certainly fore- 
known before his creation, as it is an awful fact after his doom 
is sealed, or as it will be known at the final consummation. 

The sin and its punishment would as certainly not be dif- 
ferent from what they prove to be, as it is impossible God 
should become an erring, deceived being. How, then, are 
the difficulties diminished in the latter statement of the sub- 
ject ? In predestination, the existence of sin is permitted, 
as the abuse of man's free agency. In foreknowledge, it is 
foreseen, and not prevented. In the former, it has a place in 
the universe, as a mysterious evil, out of which God will 
bring ultimate good. In the latter, it is distinctly and infal- 
libly foreknown, and will hold a place in the creation as cer- 
tainly as God is unerring. In predestination, God decrees 
or determines to permit sin, and to punish the wicked for 
their sin. He determines to do the very thing which all ac- 
knowledge it is right he should do. In foreknowledge, He 
foresees infallibly the sin of the creature, and also his own 
act by which he will doom him to everlasting destruction ; 
and yet, with this infallible certainty of man's sin and per- 
dition, creates him with precisely those faculties and propen- 
sities, and places him in that state and under those circum- 
stances, in connection with which his fall and ruin will as 
certainly be the consequence as God is certainly omniscient. 
We submit to the candid judgment of every reader, whether 
those who reject Predestination, while they receive the doc- 
trine of Foreknowledge, do not " strain at a gnat, and swallow 
a camel/' Nor need it be thought strange to hear even 
preachers of this stamp utter sentiments with regard to the 
latter, which wound the feelings and even chill the blood of 
sober Christians. 



104 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VI 

The doctrine of Predestination as thus stated, has received 
the cordial approval of many of the most distinguished theo- 
logians in the Presbyterian church. To any well informed 
Calvinist, the foul epithets heaped upon our system by Ar- 
minian authors and preachers, serve only to excite compassion 
for their rashness, or disgust for their impiety.* 

But still it may be inquired whether there is not a class of 
Calvinists whose sentiments, when fairly and honestly con- 
strued, assume much stronger ground than the foregoing; 
and perhaps give some show of occasion for the aspersions 
cast upon us by Arminians ? We answer — we know of no 
such Calvinists in the Presbyterian church ; and if there be 
any such in other connections, we are not responsible for their 
errors. We have admitted that the distinction of Supralap- 
sarian and Sublapsarian has had an existence, and a few 
eminent men seem to have adopted the former view. This 
distinction relates to the order of the Divine decrees. The 
Supralapsarian goes " above the fall" — for so the term sig- 
nifies. According to him, " God had but the one great end 
in view in creation — the manifestation of his perfections ; 
and for this purpose, says an eloquent writer, he formed men 
with the design that they should sin, in order that He might 
appear infinitely good in pardoning some, and just in con 
demning others. He resolved to punish such and such persons, 
not because he foresaw they would sin, and in view of their 
sin, but he resolved that they should sin that he might damn 
them." f But the eloquent Calvinist who draws this picture 

* For many rare specimens, see the book of Foster and Simpson — " Sa- 
tanic cruelty," " malevolence," " hypocrisy," " God a Moloch," " worse than 
the devil," &c. &c. We would not quote such blasphemy, were it not that 
it seems necessary in order to show the spirit in which Arminians controvert 
what they call Calvinism. 

f This statement is from Saurin, vol. ii. Serm. 66. A much milder and 
probably more just view of the Supralaiisarian theory is given by Ridgoly, 
vol. i. p. 445. He says : " That system represents reprobation to be, not 
aa act of justice, but rather of sovereignty " — and that " it has given rise to 



Let. VI. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 105 

of the Supralapsarian scheme, utterly repudiates it. " "We 
easily conceive/' he says, " that it is for the glory of Divine 
justice to punish guilty men. But to resolve to damn them 
without the consideration of sin — to create them that they 
might sin, to determine that they should sin in order to their 
destruction, seems to us to tarnish the glory of God, rather 
than to display it," " In the general scheme of our church," 
he adds, " God only permits men to sin, and it is the abuse 
of liberty that plunges man into misery." " We believe that 
God from a principle of goodness created mankind free, 
agreeably to his infinite wisdom," &c. He then states and 
approves the doctrine of the Sublapsarian, very much as we 
have given it. 

In earlier periods, we admit there were some eminent men, 
such as Twiss, "Witsiua and others, who appear to have 
adopted the Supralapsarian scheme ) and even Calvin, at 
times, seems to lean in that direction. But, so far as known 
to us, the ministry of the Presbyterian church are to a man, 
Sublapsarian. In their scheme the purposes or decrees con- 
template mankind as fallen and lost, " by nature children of 
wrath;" and that from this mass of ruins, God determined 
to save all who will be saved, and to punish the rest " for 
their sin." The wonderful provision of mercy in Jesus Christ, 
by which he saves men, never was made for fallen angels. 
" He took not on him the nature of angels — but was found 
in fashion as a man." 

Thus, then, it appears that some of the same objections 
urged by Arminians against the system of Calvinism, in 
general, have been employed by the Sublapsarian Calvinist 
in refuting the scheme of the Supralapsarian. But as all 
Presbyterian authors, whenever they speak of the distinction, 
agree in disclaiming the Supralapsarian theory as seeming 
to " make God the author of sin," &c. it is worse than folly 

prejudices against the true doctrine of Predestination, as though it involved 
the idea that God made man to damn him/' 



106 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VI. 

to hold the Presbyterian church responsible for such errors. 
How gross a perversion of the truth do we find, for example, 
in Dr. Fisk's " Discourse on Predestination and Election I" 
He represents the Calvinistic system thus : " That the char- 
acter and acts of intelligent beings, so far as their moral 
accountability is concerned, are definitely fixed and efficiently 
produced by the unalterable purpose and effectual decree of 
God." " Here," he adds, " we are at issue with Calvinists \" 
Not at issue with any shade of extreme Calvinism; for he 
says, with such statements "agree all the Calvinistic 
Divines in Europe and America V These extraordinary 
statements are published by the General Conference, in No. 
131 of their series of Tracts ! These are not the blunders 
of a few misinformed zealots, but the deliberate, well- 
considered statements of the president of a college, and others 
of their most enlightened men ! And even Bishop Simpson, 
in his "Introduction," as we have already shown, is found 
in the same discreditable position. 

When, therefore, Messrs. Foster and Simpson object to 
some of our views, " that they render the conclusion inevitable 
that G-od is the author — the originator or cause of sin " * — 
we meet the impious charge in the language of President 
Edwards — "If, by 'the author of sin/ be meant the agent 
or actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing, * * * I 
reject such an imputation on the Most High as a reproach 
and blasphemy infinitely to be abhorred. But if, by ' the au- 
thor of sin/ be meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin; 
and at the same time a disposer of the state of events, in such 
a manner, for wise and holy and most excellent ends and pur- 
poses, that sin, if it he permitted and not hindered, will most 
certainly follow : I say, if this be all that is meant, I do 
not deny that Grod is the author of sin (though I dislike and 
reject the phrase), and it is no reproach for the Most High 
\o be thus the author of sin. * * * And I assert that 
* Objections, &e. p. 30. 



Let. VI. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 107 

it equally follows from the doctrine maintained by most of 
the Arminian divines." * 

On the subject of the permission of sin, the author of 
(i Objections/' &c. seems even more in the dark than is his 
wont. Thus he tells us, " The doctrine of permission is an 
abandonment of the doctrine of decrees as taught by the 
Presbyterian church — that it is Arminianism, not Calvin- 
ism ; " and addressing Dr. Rice, Mr. Foster says : " Do 
you not know that I defend the doctrine of permission 
(of sin) against you who deny it ? " But if the Bishop 
and Mr. F. had been at the pains to look into almost any of 
our standard writers, from Turretine down to the present day, 
they would have discovered this distinction fairly and fully 
stated between the efficacious and permissive decrees. Thus, 
in so common a book as Dr. Ashbel Green's " Lectures on the 
Shorter Catechism," we read as follows : 

" There is a difference always to be kept up between what 
have been denominated the efficacious decrees and the per- 
missive decrees. The former relate to whatever is morally 
good — his permissive decrees to whatever is morally evil. 
Evil he permits to take place and efficaciously overrules to 
his own glory." So also Dr. John Owen, of the days of 
Cromwell : " The decree respects the creation of man, and 
the permission of his fall." f It would be a serious task to 
quote even a part of what our best writers have penned in 
defense of this distinction. The language of our Confession of 
Faith will be presented as we proceed in the discussion. We 
will thus be able to decide whether Calvinists deny what they 
every where recognize as an essential feature of their system ! 

In reply to the usual quotations from modern Calvinists 
abundantly asserting the distinction between efficacious and, 
permissive decrees, the General Conference, in Tract 181, 
employ Dr. Fisk to utter the following : 

• On the Will, part 4, sec. 9. 

f Exposition of Hebrews, vol. ii. p. 35. 



, m ITT 



108 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VI. 

" Those early defenders of unconditional election/ 7 remarks 
Dr. F. " came out boldly and fearlessly with their doctrine. 
If modem Calvinists would do the same, we should need no 
other refutation of the system." " At the present day, nu- 
merous changes of a more popular cast, and such as are suited 
to cover up the offensive features of the system, are intro- 
duced." " To represent the thing as it is, seems so like ac- 
cusing our brethren of insincerity and duplicity," &c. u And 
being hard pressed by their antagonists, they have thrown up 
these new redoubts, and assumed these new positions, not only 
to conceal their doctrine, but if possible to defend it." 

It is not unworthy of remark, that the Papists, Pelagians 
and Socinians of Turretine' s day employed this same artifice. 
Thus they accused the orthodox — " reipsa sentire, quod verbo 
profited non audent " — "with holding sentiments they did not 
dare openly to profess." And Turretine tells us, to such men 
as Zuingle, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and others, the atrocious 
injury was done (atrocem fieri injuriam). 

If, therefore, Dr. Fisk and the Conference are correct, the 
doctrine of the permission of sin is a mere subterfuge — a 
modern Calvinistic artifice, adopted in order to conceal our 
real views from our Arminian antagonists, by whom we have 
been " hardly pressed " in the argument ! 

But in this thing these Arminian authors and their Con- 
ference betray great rashness, as well as commit a breach of 
Christian courtesy. It will be admitted, we suppose, that 
Francis Turretine does not belong to the " moderns." He 
was born 1623 — died 1687. His great work, the Institutio 
Theologian, was published at Geneva, where he was Professor 
of Theology, one of Calvin's distinguished successors. Of 
course, he belongs to a period a century prior to the advent 
of Wesley, a hundred years before Methodism was thought of. 
He was one of the brightest ornaments of that celebrated 
school of the prophets. His system is now a standard work 
among Calvinists, is used at Princeton, N. J. as a text-book, 



Let. VI. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 109 

and is every where recognized as a reliable exposition of Old 
School Calvinism. We will translate a few passages for the 
benefit of our assailants : 

Decrees. — " The decree, in respect of its objects, often in- 
cludes a certain condition, but is nevertheless in its own 
nature absolute ; because both the condition and conditional 
event depend immutably upon God, either in respect of per- 
mission in things that are wicked, or of efficiency in things 
that are good: (vel quoad permissionem ut in malis, vel 
quoad effectionem in bonis.)" 

Necessity. — Our author affirms that the Divine decree im- 
plies the necessity of future events ; but he expressly dis- 
claims the idea of an absolute or physical necessity, as also the 
necessity of coercion or force ; and teaches a necessity which 
respects only the certainty of the future existence of the event, 
which is the object of the decree : (respectu certitudinis 
eventus et futuritionis ex decreto.) And in reply to the ob- 
jection that this doctrine makes God the author of sin, he 
says of the decree, " non est effectivum mali, sed tantum per- 
missivum et directivum" — "it is not efficient of evil, but only 
permissive and directive to proper ends." 

Election he defines, "the counsel of God, in which he de- 
creed out of his mere grace to have compassion upon certain 
persons, and being delivered from their sins through his Son, 
to bestow upon them eternal salvation." " The decree of 
eternal life and eternal death has respect to man as fallen 
(respicere hominem lapsum). Otherwise he says, we repre- 
sent " God as having reprobated man before by sin he could 
be the proper object of reprobation ; and as having sentenced 
the innocent to punishment, before any fault was foreseen in 
them." " By the decree of God, the salvation of the elect is 
established and certain, but by the decree of the same God 
only in the way of faith and holiness." 

The views of Turretine on the subject of Reprobation, will 
be further adduced when we come to speak more directly on 
10 



110 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMLNIANISM. Let. VI. 

that topic. We will next look at the sentiments of the West- 
minster Assembly, which met in 1643, and whom even Dr. 
Fisk and the Conference will hardly claim to be "mod- 
erns I" In order to convict Presbyterians of the monstrous 
impiety which represents God as the author and efficient cause 
of sin, these Arminians quote the Assembly's Confession, chap. 
5, sec. 4 : 

"The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom and infinite 
goodness of Grod, do so far manifest themselves in his providence, 
that it extendeth itself to the first fall and all other sins of an- 
gels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as 
hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and 
otherwise ordering and governing of them in a manifold dis- 
pensation to his own holy ends." This passage is supposed to 
assert such an " efficient control" over all the actions of men 
and angels, as to represent Grod as the author of all their 
sins. Now it might be a sufficient reply to this simply to 
quote the remainder of the section, viz. " Yet so as the sinful- 
ness thereof (of wicked actions) proceedeth only from the crea- 
ture, not from God." The very section, adduced in proof 
that Presbyterians teach that Grod is the author of sin, utterly 
disclaims such a sentiment. Is it fair, to attempt to prove 
us guilty of an impious dogma, by referring to an article 
which expressly disclaims it ? Further : Let us insert in the 
body of the foregoing article, the negative which denies its 
truth, and how will it read? Thus : "The almighty power, 
unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of Grod, do not so 
far manifest themselves in his providence, as to extend either 
to the first fall, or to any other of the sins of angels and men, 
except by a bare permission, which has not joined with it any 
wise and powerful bounding (i. e. limiting or restraining); 
nor does Glod order (or overrule) and govern them, in a mani- 
fold dispensation, to any holy end." In the act of sin, there- 
fore, creatures are left beyond the reach of Divine providence ; 
they are without any overruling power, and beyond the limit 



Let. VI. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. Ill 

of any wise and powerful restraint, for holy and benevolent 
purposes ! Moreover, where there is no government, there is 
no law, and where there is no law, there is no transgression. 
In the act of sin, therefore, it is impossible to sin ! ! In 
truth, this article is only a full expression of the sentiment 
of the Psalmist : " The wrath of man shall praise thee, and 
the remainder of wrath thou wilt restrain." Do Methodists 
deny this ? 

Once more our Confession is brought to testify against us. 
Thus chap. 3, sec. 2 : " Although God knows whatsoever may 
or can come to pass, yet has he not decreed any thing because 
he foresaw it as future," &c. But can any person of sense 
maintain the affirmative of this article, viz. " that God has 
decreed many things because he foresaw them as future ?" 
How will it work with his positive or efficient decrees — say 
to make or judge the world ? Has God decreed (or deter- 
mined) to do either of these great acts, because lie foresaw he 
would perform them ? The question answers itself. Let us 
try it with his permissive decrees. Does God foresee that he 
will permit certain conduct, and not till then, decree (or de- 
termine) to permit it ? A child would pronounce it non- 
sense to talk of a being foreseeing that he will do certain 
things, and then, not before, determining to do them. 

Again it is objected that our Confession of Faith teaches 
that the angels and men who are predestinated, u are partic- 
ularly and unchangeably designed ; and their number is so 
certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or 
diminished." Conf. chap. 3, sec. 4. But what is the lan- 
guage of Methodism in her standard publications, in reference 
to this subject? "I believe the eternal decree concerning 
both (election and reprobation) is expressed in these words, 
1 He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not 
shall be damned/ And this decree, without doubt, God will 
not change, and man cannot resist." Doct. Tracts, p. 15. 
Now add to this " eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree" 



112 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMLNIANISM. Let. VI. 

of Methodism, the admitted truth, that God infallibly fore- 
knows, individually, personally, by name and by number, the 
identical persons to whom it will secure salvation, and to 
whom it will secure perdition — that the number of the saved 
and the number of the lost, are as certainly known in the 
Divine prescience, as though that precise number of persons 
had already been admitted to heaven, and that other precise 
number been cast down to hell. Most manifestly, then, " the 
number of the predestinated is so definite, that it cannot be 
either increased or diminished," unless the Divine fore- 
knowledge be mere conjecture, and he who knows all things 
have made a mistake. " Whatever God foreknows," says Dr. 
Fisk, " will undoubtedly (or certainly) come to pass." He 
foreknows the exact number who will believe and be saved 
— that exact number will undoubtedly be saved. He fore- 
knows the exact number who will refuse to believe and 
perish — that exact number will undoubtedly (or certainly) 
perish. This argument might be extended to a great length, 
at every step multiplying the embarrassments of our oppo- 
nents. We might call upon them to explain how they can 
sincerely and honestly urge, exhort, entreat sinners to flee from 
the wrath to come, since, on their own principles, "the num- 
ber of the elect is certain," as Fletcher afiirms, and, of course, 
the number of the reprobate equally certain. Do they expect 
to change this certainty, i. e. to falsify infallible foreknow- 
ledge ? How will they, on these principles, evince the mercy 
of God, in originally creating beings who were infallibly cer- 
tain to be miserable for ever ; or his grace, in giving his well- 
beloved Son to die, to make an atonement and purchase a 
salvation, by shedding his blood for thousands, for whom 
these blessings were infallibly certain to result only in the 
aggravation of their unutterable woe ? 

Our Arminian " antagonists," as they choose to call them- 
selves, will now perceive how vulnerable the scheme of doc- 
trine they have adopted — how easy to retort upon such 



Let. VII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 113 

authors as Foster and Simpson, the shocking blasphemies they 
charge upon Calvinism; and especially how foolish, not to 
say wicked, the attempt to fix upon the Presbyterian minis- 
try the foul stain of deliberate deception, "insincerity," 
" duplicity," " disingenuousness and cowardice, in smoothing 
over and covering up, &c." * It is obvious that these foul 
aspersions lie with far greater force against our Arminian 
accusers; for who ever heard an Arminian preacher state 
from the pulpit these difficulties of his system ? Who ever 
finds them even hinted at in such works as Foster's " Objec- 
tions to Calvinism ?" But "to their own Master they stand 
or fall" — we are not their judges. 



LETTEE VII. 

PREDESTINATION— ELECTION— REPROBATION. 

Rev. Sir — It has now been made apparent, if I mistake 
not, that the attempts of Arminians to manufacture a creed 
for the Presbyterian church, is a total failure ; and that the 
impious dogmas which you say we "must believe," bear 
" the image and superscription" of the great lights of Armin- 
ianism ! We might here leave the subject to the judgment 
of all unprejudiced men. But although it is not our object 
to write an extended defense of the doctrine of Predestina- 
tion ; yet, as this feature of our system more than all others, 
, has furnished modern Methodists with matter of abuse and 
denunciation, it may be proper to dwell briefly on its logical 
bearings upon several distinct topics ; in doing which we shall 
endeavor at the same time to exhibit the weakness of the 
Arminian scheme. 

I. The inquiry, Why does sin exist under the government 
of a most wise, holy and powerful Ruler? has always been 

* Dr. Pisk on Elec. and Predest. pp. 34, 35. Methodist Tract, No. 131. 

10* 






114 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VII. 

viewed as attended with difficulty. If we accept the state- 
ments of Messrs. Foster and Simpson, the Calvinistic solution 
is briefly this : " God is the author, originator and efficient 
cause of all sin," and, of course, of the first sin. " Divine 
agency is as much concerned in bad as in good actions." 
" When man chooses sin, he wills not freely — but God by 
invisible power, irresistibly compels him to will" — " and he is 
no more free in his choice than the earth in its revolutions." 
Of course, the whole matter is contained in a nut-shell : 
Adam, according to Calvinists, sinned because he could not 
help it — could not resist the Divine impulse to do wickedly ! * 
But if these our " antagonists" had been sincerely desirous 
" to show what Calvinists themselves teach on this subject," 
they would have pursued a very different course. Instead of 
gathering scraps, detached paragraphs penned by Chalmers, 
Dick, Toplady, Edwards and others, often when writing on 
other topics, they would have copied a few sentences such as 
the following from Jonathan Edwards, when expressly speak- 
ing of the author of sin : " There is a vast difference between 
God being concerned by his permission, in the event and act 
of sin, * * * and his producing it by a positive agency 
or efficiency. As there is a vast difference between the sun 
being the cause of the light, and of the warmth of the atmos- 
phere * * and its being the occasion of darkness and 
frost when it descends below the horizon. * * * Sin is 
not the fruit of any positive agency or influence of the Most 

* Objections, &c. pp. 45, 47. In proof of these blasphemous charges, Mr. 
F. quotes Dr. Emmons ; but he forgets to add that he was not a Presbyterian 
but a Congregationalist of New England — that his doctrinal sentiments 
never had any considerable currency even among his own brethren, and 
never found a solitary advocate in the Presbyterian church. Any minis- 
ter of our body who should avow Emmonsism, would be disciplined for dan- 
gerous error. Mr. Foster might as well have cited Priestley, Belsham or 
Ballou against Calvinism as Dr. Emmons. In Ridgely's Body of Divinity, 
vol. i. p. 424, he will find an able and conclusive refutation of Dr. Emmons' 
views, viz. that " God is the direct author, the immediate cause, the proper 
creator of all moral evil, as well as of holiness in heart and life." 



Let. VII. ELECTION — KEPROBATION. 115 

High, but arises from the withholding of his action and 
energy, &c; there is a great difference between his not hin- 
dering it and his being the proper cause of sin, &c. If men 
never commit sin, except when God leaves them to them- 
selves, and necessarily (or certainly) sin when he does so, it 
follows that their sin is from themselves, not from God." * 
Or, as it is expressed in our Catechism : " Our first parents, 
being left to the freedom of their own will, fell * * * by 
sinning against God."f Is this the same as to say : "man is 
a machine, and under a necessity such as that of matter to obey 
gravitation Y* J 

In reply, therefore, to the question, Why does sin exist 
under the government of a most wise, holy, benevolent and 
powerful Being ? Calvinists from the days of the Apostle Paul 
and Augustine down to Luther, Calvin and the Westminster 
Assembly, have uniformly answered, " Because God saw 
proper to permit its existence, determining so to overrule 
all things as to make ' the wrath of man to praise him/ and 
from infinite evil to bring infinite good." Thus the West- 
minster Confession : " This their sin (viz. of our first parents) 
God was pleased according to his wise and holy counsel, to 
permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. " chap. 
6, sec. 1. Again : Larger Catechism, Q. 19 : " God by his 
providence permitted some of the angels willfully and irre- 
coverably to fall into sin and damnation, limiting and order- 
ing that and all their sins to his own glory." While, there- 
fore, the Westminster Divines maintain that "God hath fore- 
ordained whatsoever comes to pass," they also admit the 
important distinction between the efficient and the permissive 
decrees, so that " all things fall out according to the nature 
of second causes." chap. 5, sec. 2. "Neither is God the 
author of sin ; nor is violence offered to the will of the crea- 
tures ; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken 



* On the Will, pp. 250, 251, abridged. f Quest. 13. 

% Foster's Objections, p. 44. 






116 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VII. 

away, but rather established." chap. 3, sec. 1. This power- 
ful, wise and good providence, it is further said (chap. 5, sec. 
4), " extendeth itself even to the first fall and all other sins 
of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but 
such (permission) as hath joined with it a most wise and 
powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing 
them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends ; yet 
so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the crea- 
ture and not from God, who being most holy and righteous, 
neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin." " Not 
by a bare permission;" "not," to employ the illustration of 
Calvin, " as though Grod were seated in a watch-tower, await- 
ing fortuitous events." The views of the Westminster Con- 
fession are in part well expressed by Wesley : " It was easy 
for the Almighty to have prevented sin." "It was undoubt- 
edly in his power to prevent it ; for he hath all power both 
in heaven and in earth. But it was known to him at the 
same time, that it was best on the whole not to prevent it." 
Serm. vol. ii. p. 285. That sin, therefore, which he saw "on 
the whole .to be best/' he determined, decreed, or foreordained 
— not " to influence men to commit" — not " to work in the 
hearts of the wicked" — (as we are slanderously reported) — 
but to permit* and to order or overrule for his own glory. 

The Calvinistic answer to the inquiry, Why does sin exist ? 
may therefore be summed up as follows : 

1. Sin exists by the permission of the Almighty Ruler. 

2. It exists according to his intention. If he suffer or 
permit sin to exist, he doubtless intended to do so. Other- 
wise, he permitted it without intention ; that is, without de- 
sign, plan or wisdom ; or contrary to his intention. In other 

* It is singular that a Doctor of Divinity should so far misunderstand the 
theological meaning of this term, as to talk as follows : "If they mean by 
permission, that God gave a personal permit to Adam and Eve to commit 
sin," &c. " To say lhat God gave a, permit or license to sin, is bold; but to 
say that he decreed it," &c. — Dr. Bangs' Reply to Haskel, p. 22. 



Let. VII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 117 

words, contrary to what is holy, wise and good, as all his de- 
signs must be. 

3. The permitted existence of sin, as a part of the Divine 
plan, was infallibly certain and fixed before the creation of 
angels or men ; or in other words, from eternity. For if it 
be according to the intention of the Divine Being to suffer 
the existence of sin, it was always so, unless G-od has 
changed. Further : God from all eternity foreknew that he 
would suffer sin to exist. But if from eternity he certainly 
knew that he would permit sin, he must have certainly deter- 
mined or purposed to permit it. Otherwise he could not cer- 
tainly know that he would do that which he had not certainly 
determined to do. Besides, if the purpose to permit sin 
be not from eternity, then must it have been formed at some 
subsequent period. Then there must have been some reasons 
suggested to the Divine mind, why He should form it at that 
time and not before. But this supposes new knowledge to 
be imparted to the Deity, which is absurd. 

4. "Could not G-od have placed at the head of the human 
family, on whom the destiny of the rest should depend, one 
who would not have sinned ? If he could not, then it follows 
that sin could not be avoided, if man existed ; and the deter- 
mination to create man, involved in it a purpose to permit 
the existence of sin. But if it be said, G-od could have cre- 
ated in the place of Adam, one who would not have sinned, 
but still chose to create one whom he knew would sin, it is as 
evident as anything can be, that by this selection he did de- 
termine to permit sin." * So that whether we suppose God 
could or could not have created as the federal head of the 
race, a man who would not have sinned, we are landed in the 
doctrine of the Divine permission of sin ; much more, if we 
admit (which is the common Calvinistic belief,) that the same 
power which has preserved in purity and fidelity legions of 
angels, and will forever preserve "the spirits of just men 

* For this extract, see Bib. Rep. vol. iii, p. 174. 



118 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINTANISM. Let. VII. 

made perfect," could also " with the temptation, have made 
a way of escape" for our first parents ; to deny which, seems 
very like denying both the power and the truth of God. 

Very different, however, is the answer of Arminians to the 
inquiry, Why does sin exist ? They maintain, that on the 
supposition of man's free agency, the Almighty could not 
prevent his fall; and that after doing all in his power to 
" secure the accomplishment of his will," he was utterly de- 
feated in his plan ! " "We never doubted," says Fletcher, 
" his ability * * * eternally to save all mankind, if he 
would absolutely do it," — " the Almighty can overpower all 
his creatures, if he should be bent upon it, and drive them 
from sin to necessitated holiness, far more easily than a shep- 
herd can drive his frighted sheep from the market," &c. 
This, according to Arminians, is the sort and degree of power 
God possesses to prevent sin — viz. by " destroying the free 
will of moral agents." Although, therefore, it was the will 
of God to prevent the entrance of sin into his universe, he 
had no method or power to prevent man from sinning, ex- 
cept in " opposition to his own wisdom, justice, holiness and 
veracity." Can this be the true idea of God ? 

In the same strain hear Dr. Bangs : " To say that the power 
of God was adequate to have prevented man as a free agent, 
from sinning, is a contradiction." (Rep. to Haskel, p. 24.) 
And Watson : " We may confidently say that He willed the 
contrary of Adam's offense, and that he used all means con- 
sistent with his determination to give and maintain free 
agency to his creatures, to secure the accomplishment of his 
will." * 

Such is the picture of the Almighty Sovereign drawn by 
Arminians, and of the government whose helm he holds in 

* And yet "Watson had before remarked : " The observations of Doddridge 
have a commendable modesty, viz. ' It will be demanded, why was moral evil 
permitted ? why did not God prevent the abuse of liberty ? ' One would not 
willingly say that he was not able, without violating the nature of his 
creatures ; nor is it possible to pkove this." Vol. i. p. 435. 



Let. VII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 119 

his hand 1 " My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my 
pleasure." Isaiah 46 : 10. " Not so," replies the Methodist ; 
" God often fails to secure the accomplishment of his will and 
pleasure, and that too after using all means consistent with 
the nature of the object he was striving to secure!" " He 
doeth according to his will in the army of heaven and among 
the inhabitants of earth." Dan. 4: 35. "However it may be 
in heaven ! " answers Watson, " He is often greatly disap- 
pointed of ' his will ; among the i inhabitants of the earth V " 
"We have obtained an inheritance," saith the Apostle, "being 
predestinated according to the purpose of Him, who worketh 
all things after the counsel of his own will." Eph. 1 : 11. 
" To that statement," replies the Arminian, " I have several 
objections : (1.) ' Properly speaking,' God does not ' work 
all things' at all. I would almost as soon believe the Presby- 
terian Confession of Faith, as to believe that. (2.) All things 
are not ' after the counsel of his own will/ For we may 
1 confidently say/ that he used all proper means to secure the 
accomplishment of his will, in the case of our first parents, 
and most signally failed ! (3.) My third objection is, that 
if we have no better foundation for our hope of the eternal 
'inheritance/ than 'the purpose of Him who worketh all 
things after the counsel of his own will/ why we may as 
well strike our colors, and turn Calvinists at once ! " 
"Lord," says the Psalmist, "incline not my heart to any 
evil thing, to practice wicked works." Ps. 141 : 4. "I ob- 
ject utterly," says the Arminian, " to any such absurd Cal- 
vinistic prayer ! What ! a Christian pray that God would 
not incline his heart to evil, nor lead him into temptation, 
when it is as plain as our best writers can make it, that God 
could not incline the hearts of our first parents even to good, 
without destroying their free agency ! " " Incline my heart 
unto thy testimonies and not to covetousness," repeats the 
Psalmist. Ps. 119 : 36. " Shocking ! " exclaims Wesley. 
"Why does not the Bible 'speak more properly I"' 



120 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VII. 

" Will they deny," remarks Edwards, "that an omnipotent 
and infinitely wise Grod could possibly invent and set before 
men such strong motives to be obedient, and have kept them 
before them in such a manner as should have influenced all 
mankind to continue in their obedience, as the ' elect angels ' 
have done, without destroying their liberty ? " " If it is 
not in the power of G-od to keep a free agent from sinning, 
with what propriety can he be directed to pray for restrain- 
ing grace, or that he may be kept from sin ? If it is not in 
the power of Grod to control the hearts of free agents, and 
restrain them from sin, according to his pleasure, dreadful 
consequences may ensue. They might in every respect cross 
the will of Grod, and defeat every valuable end the Divine 
Being proposed in their formation. The good he aimed at in 
creation may be prevented, irreparable disorders be intro- 
duced. The friends of virtue would be filled with lamenta- 
tion, and the enemies of Grod and of all good, would triumph 
and exult. We infer that as Grod is able to restrain sin 
among the apostate children of men, who are under the 
dominion of powerful vicious habits, so we can much more 
easily conceive that he was able to have prevented sin in 
beings made originally holy." From all which it is plain, 
that the problem of the existence of sin in the world, must 
be solved by saying with Wesley, that while " it was easy for 
the Almighty to have prevented sin, he saw that it was best 
on the whole not to prevent it." In other words, to permit 
its entrance and overrule it to his own glory.* 

* To talk of the Divine Being permitting an event to take place, which 
he is not able to prevent, is about as wise as to talk of a man permitting the 
sun to rise, or the wind to blow where it listoth. And yet it is remarkable 
that "Watson seems to adopt this sentiment. " It is obvious," he says, " that 
by nothing can we fairly avoid this consequence (of making God the author 
of sin), but by allowing the distinction between determinations to do on the 
part of God, and determinations to permit certain things to be done by 
others." Vol. ii. p. 424. Again: "A decree to permit, involves no such 
consequences." Yet he holds that God could not prevent sin in free agents ! 



Let. VII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 121 

But while it would be impious to allege that the most 
Holy God wills sin as sin, chooses it as good, the source of 
enjoyment, the fountain of happiness, as men do — it may 
still be his pleasure so to direct and overrule events in his 
providence, that when he permits, sin will come to pass ; and 
this he may do most wisely and holily — yea, though he hate 
moral evil with infinite hatred. This is justified by every 
enlightened conscience, however certainly it is foreknown that 
the creature will be guilty of the crime. It is in some such 
sense as this that Calvinists teach the Divine permission of 
sin, viz. not that God approves of sin, but suffers it to exist, 
and brings light out of darkness, good out of evil. 

We are now prepared to decide what Mr. Foster means by 
saying to Dr. Rice : " the doctrine of permission is Arminian- 
ism, not Calvinism." He means that God permitted sin in 
free agents, because he could not help it — very much as a 
child permits the tempest to roar and the lightning to flash 
and destroy ! God might indeed have prevented moral evil 
by abstaining from the creation of moral agents, or after crea- 
tion, destroying their freedom — but except on these supposi- 
tions, sin had the mastery — the Divine will in the true sense 
of the term, was thwarted and defeated. 

Now, can this be true ? Is not God a most perfectly happy 
being, free from every such thing as pain, grief or trouble ? 
But if any intelligent being is crossed and disappointed, and 
things turn out contrary to his favorite purposes and desires, 
he suffers that which is contrary to joy and happiness. And 
if every act of sin is truly, all things considered, contrary to 
the Divine will, and God's hatred of sin is infinite, because of 
the infinite contrariety of his holy nature to it, then it follows 
that the Divine will is infinitely crossed in every act of sin. 
In other words, God endures that which is infinitely disagree- 
able to him in every sin committed. Hence he must be 
infinitely crossed, and suffer infinite pain every day in mil- 
lions of instances — he must be the subject of an immense 
11 



122 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VII. 

number of real and truly infinitely great crosses and vexations. 
And what is this but to make him infinitely the most miser- 
able of all beings. * In any such sense as this, Mr. Foster 
might truly say to Dr. Rice, or any other Calvinist : "I 
defend the doctrine of permission against you who deny it." f 

If the proof already adduced be not sufficient to establish 
the fact that the Presbyterian church do hold and teach the 
doctrine of the Divine permission of sin (not its efficient cau- 
sation), we add the following from that very common work, 
" Fisher's Catechism," which was composed by the Erskines 
and James Fisher, of Scotland, A. D. 1753-65, and can 
scarcely be called a modern production : Q. " How does the 
decree of Grod extend to things naturally and morally good V 9 
Ans. " Effectively ; because God is the author and efficient 
cause of all good." Q. " How does it extend to things mor- 
ally evil V Ans. Permissively and directively only." Q. 
" Is the permissive decree a bare inactive permitting of evil ?" 
Ans. "No; it determines the event of the evil and overrules 
it to a good end." The book is a standard among Calvinists. 

Dr. Dick, also, one of Mr. Foster's chief authorities, and a 
high Calvinist, says : " Our scheme presupposes sin as the 
ground-work of Predestination, and makes the act of Grod 
toward the reprobate to be nothing more than his purpose to 
leave them in their sin, and to withhold his grace, which 
he was under no obligation to communicate. Grod does not 
will the sins of man or effect them by any operation of his 
power." Again : " The permission of moral evil does not 
imply an approbation of it." Again : " Grod permits sinful 
actions." In proof he quotes Psalm 81 : "I gave them up 
to their own hearts' lusts." " The action is from Grod ; its 
quality, if it be evil, is from man ;" and speaking of Pha- 
raoh : " Grod did not exert any direct and immediate influence 
upon his mind, either to infuse wickedness into it, or to con- 

* See this argument at length in Edwards on the Will, part 4, sec. 9. 
f Objections, Ac. p. 277. 



Let. VII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 123 

firm his proud and rebellious disposition" — " the hardening 
of their hearts, (viz. of wicked men,) is their own work, and 
is ascribed to God only indirectly." * Ridgely, another of Mr. 
Foster's authorities, says : " Nothing more need be supposed 
on God's part, in order to the holiest creatures losing their 
virtue, than only his leaving them to themselves." Is this 
the same as saying : " God is the cause of all sin" — " works 
wickedness in the wicked ?" 

II. From the discussion of the entrance of sin and its per- 
mission, we proceed to a more close examination of its bane- 
ful influence upon all classes of the human family. " All," 
say the Scriptures, (( have sinned and come short of the glory 
of God" — " Death has passed upon all men, for that all have 
sinned" — " God hath concluded all under sin" — " In Adam 
all die." The curse due to iniquity hath fallen upon the 
race. " Children themselves," says Wesley, " suffer ; there- 
fore they deserve to suffer."*)*. "Their sufferings, en- 
tailed upon them by the sin of Adam, * * * are the 
result of justice." u The sin of Adam is imputed to infants, 
who suffer death through him. "J " They die • therefore 
they have sinned, but not by actual sin ; therefore by original 
sin." "It has been proved that * * * hereby they 
are children of wrath and liable to eternal damnation"^ 
These strong statements of the just exposure of even infants 
to suffering and death by " the sin of Adam," are fully con- 
firmed, as has been shown, by Watson, the greatest of Armin- 
ian theologians, thus : " The fact of their being born liable 
to (bodily) death, a part of the penalty, is sufficient to show 
that they were born under the whole malediction." ^[ 

These and many similar statements from leading Arminian 
authors, obviously teach the following doctrine, viz. In virtue 

* Theology, Lecture 36, 24, 41, 43. 

■j- Original Sin, part 3, sec. 2, 3- 

J Original Sin. 

§ Treatise on Baptism. Doct. Tracts, pp. 246, 251. 

<j[ Vol. ii. pp. 58, 55. 



124 . DIFFICULTIES OF AEMINIANISM. Let. VII. 

of the representative character of Adam and our covenant 
relation to him, all mankind, including infants, have " become 
polluted with sin/' are " subject to spiritual death/' or 
"the withdrawment of the intercourse of God with the 
human soul" — "die temporally, because they deserve to 
suffer and die" — " are born under the whole malediction," 
and are u justly liable to eternal damnation," as really as 
infants are justly exposed to temporal death. 

Such being the deplorable state of sin and misery into 
which the fall had brought all mankind, suppose that it had 
been the " good pleasure" of God to leave them all to the 
just reward or " wages" of their sin : if, as in the case of the 
angels that kept not their first estate, he had entertained 
thoughts of mercy toward none of them ; would it have been 
right or wrong, just or unjust? Calvinists believing the 
foregoing Arminian statements to be scriptural and true, an- 
swer, it would undoubtedly be right and just. But here our 
Arminian neighbors part company with us ; they allege that 
the terms of the original covenant, which was " very good," 
as all God's works were, could not be executed without great 
injustice and extreme cruelty ! And they begin to mutter : 
" they were horn corrupt, and so cannot be guilty for this" — 
"as to their being unregenerate, neither are they to blame 
for this, because it was entirely without their consent." * 
And Wesley, Clarke and the Arminians of the Conference 
generally agree, " that they cannot find it in the word of 
God, that he might justly have passed by all men" — " and 
they reject it as a bold precarious assertion." f 

But not only do they thus flatly contradict their own state- 
ments of doctrine, but they avoid one difficulty by leaping into 
another. For if you say it would have been wrong, unjust in 
God to execute the penalty of the violated law upon the whole 
family of man, then it follows that in respect to that part of 

* Objections to Calvinism, p. 166, and in other places. 
f Doctrinal Tracts, p. 25. 



Let. VII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 125 

mankind toward whom the punishment would have been un- 
just, " Christ has died in vain/' grace has no meaning nor 
application, unless it be grace to save those whom it would 
have been unjust to punish, and who therefore stood in need 
of no salvation. If, therefore, as the Arminian vehemently 
argues, Christ has died for all, and his atonement is a " free 
gift" — grace in its highest sense — then it inevitably follows 
that all might justly have been left to perish for their sin, if 
such had been the good pleasure of God. 

Now let us vary the case a little. Instead of supposing all 
to receive just punishment for their sin — instead of the Divine 
Being determining that all should receive their just deserts — 
he resolves, in a most wise and wonderful manner, to rescue 
from the jaws of death a very large number of these right- 
eously condemned rebels, to stand as everlasting monuments 
of his condescending love and mercy ; while, to illustrate for 
ever his hatred of sin, he permits the law to take its course, 
and executes its sentence upon the rest — would it ever enter 
the mind of any intelligent person, to complain that God was 
" partial," because when they were all deserving only of his 
wrath, and undeserving of his mercy, he executed his wrath 
upon only a part, and most graciously pardons and admits to 
his favor, the rest of the guilty rebels ? Had he punished 
the whole, all ground of complaint would have been removed; 
for Wesley admits that even infants suffer and die, because 
they deserve to suffer and die, and u that their sufferings en- 
tailed by Adam's sin are the result of justice;" and Watson 
adds, that if they justly die temporally, they may justly die 
eternally. Of course, there could be no injustice or caprice : but 
since he has seen proper to punish only a part, he is charged 
with partiality ! " In matters of grace," says Watson, " no 
axiom can be more clear, than that he who gratuitously be- 
stows has the right to do what he will with his own." Vol. ii. 
p. 443. " Friend, I do thee no wrong. Is thine eye evil, 
because I am good ?" Matt. 20 : 15. These plain principles 
11* 



126 DIFFICULTIES OF ATtMISTIANISM. Let. VII. 

of common sense are so universally admitted, as to have 
been recognized in the practical administration of all good 
governments ; and, indeed, are universally acknowledged in 
all the ordinary walks of life. 

"Who then maketh the Christian to differ from his former 
self, and from his impenitent neighbors ? And what has he 
that he did not receive ? The answer is, " We are his work- 
manship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." " You 
hath he quickened (or made spiritually alive), who were 
dead in trespasses and sins." " It is God that worketh in 
you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." "Thy 
people shall be willing in the day of thy power." 

But was there not something good found in the creature, 
something of the nature of holiness, or moral excellence, to 
move or induce God to perform the work of spiritual quick- 
ening, or restoration to spiritual life ? The answer is, " He 
hath chosen (or elected) us in him (Christ) before the founda- 
tion of the world, (not because he foresaw any thing good or 
holy in us, but) that we should be holy and without blame 
before him in love." "In whom also we have obtained an 
inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose 
of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own 
will." " Who hath saved and called us with an holy calling, 
not according to our works, but according to his own purpose 
and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the 
world began." To these very individuals did the blessed 
Saviour refer when he said, " All that the Father giveth 
me shall come unto me"- u Thou hast given him power over 
all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou 
hast given him." Again : " I pray for them ; I pray not 
for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me." 
" No man can come unto me except it were given unto him 
of my Father." " My sheep hear my voice : they shall never 
perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hands. My 
Father which gave them me is greater than all, and none 



Let. VII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 127 

can pluck them out of ray Father's hand." And to the same 
covenant transaction does the Apostle allude, when he speaks 
of " eternal life promised before the world began" Tit. 1 : 2 
— promised not to men but to Christ, for as many as the 
Father " had given him." 

" Election of God/' as Paul expresses it (1 Thess. 1 : 4) 
instead of being that horrible doctrine, which it is affirmed 
to be by Arminians, is the only ground of a Christian's hope 
— the last refuge of the despairing sinner, when the dark 
billows overflow his soul. " Election of God" is only another 
phrase for " salvation by grace" — grace begun, continued and 
finished in the soul by him who is the " author and finisher 
of faith" — grace, the essential nature of which for ever ex- 
cludes all merit from the creature, and casts him in utter, 
helpless, hopeless misery upon the free unmerited compassion 
of God — grace originating in the boundless infinitude of the 
Divine mercy, and illustrated in the incomprehensible myste- 
ries of God incarnate, as revealed in the glorious gospel. 

But in the arrangements of the Covenant of Grace, were 
not faith, repentance and good works foreseen, as the grounds 
or reasons why his sheep were given to the Saviour ? The 
answer is : " By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that 
not of yourselves; it is the gift of god."* Christ is "ex- 

* Mr. Wesley's understanding of the manner in which faith is the gift of 
God, is singular enough. He says : " Believing is the gift of the God of 
grace, as breathing, moving and eating, are the gifts of the God of natttbe. 
He gives me lungs and air, that I moy breathe," Ac. Again : " Faith is tho 
gift of God to believers, as sight is to you. The Parent of good freely gives 
you the light of the sun, and organs proper to receive it," &c. But if this 
be a correct account of the matter, unbelief is as much the gift of God as 
faith, since the powers and faculties by which a man discredits Divine truth, 
are the gift of God, as much as those by which he believes. If, however, 
Mr. Wesley designed to teach, that besides the faculties of mind, Divine power 
and grace impart also the dispositions of heart by which a man welcomes and 
receives gladly the knowledge of the truth, in the love of it, this is the high 
Calvinism of Paul. "It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do 
of his good pleasure." Philip. 2 : 13. 



128 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VII. 

alted to be a Prince and a Saviour, TO give repentance to 
Israel and remission of sins." These, therefore, which are 
the fruits of his Spirit, and of his covenant love and mercy, 
cannot be supposed to be the grounds or reasons of that of 
■which they are the fruits or results. Christ himself is "the 
author and finisher of faith." Heb. 12 : 2. And the very 
question to be settled is : What are the grounds or reasons 
why these and other gifts are bestowed upon Christ's sheep, 
and not upon others ? To say with the Arminian that it is 
because of foreseen faith, is to make faith the cause of itself 
is to say that Christ gives faith and repentance to certain 
persons, because he finds them already possessing faith and 
repentance ! Besides, " G-od hath from the beginning cho- 
sen them unto salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit 
and belief of the truth ;" where faith and holiness are de- 
clared to be the means, not the moving causes, of their elec- 
tion. Will it be said that sufficient grace is common to all, 
and that the reason why any one believes and is saved is be- 
cause he makes a good improvement of the grace given him ? 
We inquire, Is this " improvement" a work of righteousness ? 
If so, the Apostle declares repeatedly, "Not by works of 
righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy 
he saved us ;" where he places in strong contrast the two 
schemes of salvation by works and salvation, by mercy or 
grace. " Not of works, lest any man should boast." u To 
him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but 
of debt." " But if it be of works, then it is no more grace ; 
otherwise work is no more work." Rom. 11 : 6. In such 
emphatic terms does he teach the impossibility of mingling 
with salvation by grace, the miserable efforts of man. But 
if election be founded on man's improvement, then, to all in- 
tents and purposes, man makes himself to " differ," or elects 
himself; so that when the Apostle gave thanks to God for his 
brethren and for himself, because " G-od had from the begin- 
ning chosen them unto salvation" supposing him to have 



Let. VII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 129 

been a sound Methodist, we must understand him as follows : 
" God, I thank thee, that from eternity thou didst foresee 
that I and my brethren would make a much better improve- 
ment of thy grace than many of our neighbors, and that we 
would choose thee, and therefore thou hast chosen us unto 
salvation; so that with our 'good leave/ our consent to do 
our part of the work, and to make choice of thee in preference 
to the world, thou hast chosen us; in view of which great 
mercies, we render thanks to ourselves in the first place, for 
our faithfulness, and the great improvement we have made, 
by which we have furnished a reason or ground upon which 
God hath chosen us unto salvation ! ,; 

We freely admit that no pious person, however Arminian 
his creed, will ever be found bold enough to utter such senti- 
ments upon his knees, in the immediate presence of God. It 
is a remark no more trite than true, that all good men are 
Calvinists in their addresses to the throne of grace. But it 
is demonstrably the fact, that notwithstanding all that is 
said against Predestination, as destroying the necessity and 
use of prayer and the other means of grace, the objection lies 
with ten-fold force against Arminianism. The Calvinist be- 
lieves, that though the means of grace, including prayer, are 
of themselves entirely inefficacious in producing any good re • 
suit ; yet that G-od has ordained a connection between means 
and ends, by which, through his power and Spirit, whenever 
properly employed, his own institutions become efficient to 
accomplish that to which they are sent. But when the Ar- 
minian attempts to pray, what can he, consistently with his 
principles, " inquire for V He cannot ask God to convert 
sinners ; for, as we have already seen, he could only mean, 
that God would "note" their faithfulness, the improvement 
which they have made, and according to this knowledge, deal 
with them righteously ; a course which the Most Holy will 
certainly pursue, whether he prays for it or not. Neither 
can he request that God will restrain the wickedness of men, 



130 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VII. 

and incline them to good ; for that, the Arminian thinks, 
would be such an " efficient control" over their actions, as to 
destroy their free agency. Nor yet can he pray for grace to 
enable the sinner to repent and believe; for he contends that 
every man has already sufficient grace and ability. And as 
to praying for more grace, he holds that every man receives 
grace accordingly as he works for it ; and by the supposition, 
those for whom he prays, have been " careless ones from their 
youth upward. " The Arminian dare not ask God effectually 
to overcome the rebellious heart; for this would be asking for 
efficacious or special grace, not bestowed upon all men. This 
would represent the Divine Being as " partial," and a " res- 
pecter of persons." 

Besides, " What the creature will do," says Watson (vol. 
ii. p. 435), " in fact is known beforehand, with a perfect pre- 
science ;" " and what God has determined to do, is made ap- 
parent by what he actually does, which can be no new, no 
sudden thought, but known and purposed from eternity, 
in view of the actual circumstances." Now, will the Armin- 
ian inform us, whether he expects his prayers will reverse 
the perfect foreknowledge and purpose of God, which 
Watson affirms to be "from eternity?" Well may the Cal- 
vinist bless God that he has been led to adopt a system of 
doctrines which he is not obliged to abandon, whenever he 
opens his lips to plead for the favor of Heaven upon himself 
and all mankind. 

It may be proper now to glance at that " wise and power- 
ful bounding and otherwise ordering (regulating) and govern- 
ing of moral agents and their acts, to his own holy ends," * 
which the Scriptures ascribe to God. It is described by 
Edwards as "God's moral government over mankind, his 
treating them as moral agents, the objects of commands, 
counsels, calls, &c. and as consistent with a determining dis- 
posal of all events of every kind, in his providence, either by 
* Confession of Faith, chap. 5, sec. 4. 



Let. VII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 131 

positive efficiency or permission" This Divine providence 
may be exerted upon the minds of sinful beings in various 
methods — either by a restraining influence, a subduing and 
softening influence, a directing or a hardening influence.* 
The Scriptures abound in examples of all these modes of 
God's universal determining providence. Every reader of 
the Bible will at once recall the illustrations. We have 
room for only one, but that a most striking one ; we mean 
the case of Joseph and his brethren. Three quarters of a 
century before the birth of Jacob, the father of Joseph, Grod 
made to Abraham this promise : " Know of a surety that thy 
seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall 
serve them ; and they shall afflict them four hundred years ; 
* * * and that nation will I judge, and afterward they 
shall come out with great substance." * * * "In the 
fourth generation they shall come hither again." f Such 
was the decree or purpose of G-od. How was it fulfilled? 
Jacob manifests a very unwise partiality for Joseph j and 
his brethren hate him on that account. Then come his 
dreams, and his thoughtless innocence in repeating them, 
which still further incensed the brothers. Then Joseph is 
sent alone to search for them, while tending their flocks; 
they take advantage of the solitude of the place and his un- 
protectedness, and conspire to murder him, but are restrained 
by Reuben. He is thrown into a pit; but just then appear 
the Ishmaelitish traders, going down to Egypt ; he is taken 
to Egypt, is sold for a slave to Potiphar, is slandered and 
thrown into prison, where by interpreting the dreams of his 
fellow prisoners, he is exalted to a place next to the throne 
of the Pharaohs ! How wonderfully complex this history ! 
How many acts of the will and outbursts of passion were 
brought into play before the event was reached and the de- 

* Dr. Eisk and the Conference say : " God blinds and hardens their hearts 
judicially, as a just punishment for abuse of their agency." — Discourse, p. 9. 
f Gen. 15 : 13, 14, IT. 



132 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VII. 

cree fulfilled ; viz. that the descendants of Abraham should 
" be strangers in a land not theirs ?" Now let us look at the 
part which Divine providence had in all this. When Joseph's 
brethren were made known to him (Gen. 45 : 5-8) he says 
to them : " Be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves that 
ye sold me hither ; for God did send me before you to pre- 
serve life ; God sent me before to preserve you a posterity in 
the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So 
now it was not you that sent me hither, but God. f} Here is 
the Divine control over a long train of the wicked actions of 
free agents, so as to secure the fulfillment of the decree. It 
would, of course, be blasphemy to say that God produced 
by direct influence, or approved the hatred of the brethren of 
Joseph, &c. But thus "God makes the wrath of man to 
praise him, and the remainder he restrains." It is curious 
to read Fletcher's commentary on this passage : "I had rather 
believe," he says, "that Joseph told once a gross untruth, 
than suppose God perpetually equivocates." But where is 
the necessity for either foul supposition ? " You must not," 
he adds, " raise a doctrine upon two sentences which Joseph 
spake as a fond brother, rather than as a judicious divine !" * 
Let this example suffice to show what Calvinists mean 
when they affirm that " God's providence extendeth itself 
to all sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permis- 
sion." -\ " Men do will sin as sin," Edwards well remarks, 
" and so are the authors and actors of it. God does not will 
sin as sin, or for the sake of any thing evil ; though it be his 
pleasure so to order things that, he permitting, sin will come 
to pass, for the sake of the great good that, under his disposal, 
shall be the consequence." Such is the Calvinistic exposition 
of " the decrees of God, whereby for his own glory he hath 
foreordained whatsoever comes to pass," including sin as just 
explained. Of course, to allege that, according to our doc- 
trine, " God makes men sinners that he may have a pretense 
* Fourth Check. f Cotifossion of Faith, chap. 5, sec. 4. 



Let. VII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 133 

to damn them," * is a plain breach of a certain precept of the 
Decalogue. 

Nor is it less a calumny to charge Presbyterians with hold- 
ing the doctrine of " unconditional election and reprobation ;" 
in other words, that "some are elected to life and others unto 
death, wholly without respect to their character or conduct, 
thus leaving sin and virtue entirely out of the question, &c." f 
In regard to those who are saved, our Confession says, "the 
effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from 
any thing foreseen in man" (of the nature of merit), " but of 
his mere love and mercy." Yet it also says that God " re- 
quireth faith as the condition to interest them in him" — 
(Christ). J This is well explained by that eminent and judi- 
cious Calvinist, Leonard Woods, D. D. late Professor of The- 
ology at Andover : " Some (errorists) have asserted that the 
Divine purpose respecting the salvation of sinners is grounded 
altogether on the foreknowledge of their good works, and in 
this view have called the purpose of God conditional." "But 
those things which are spoken of as conditions on the part of 
man, are not so in the sense of merit" " We hold that im- 
penitent sinners do no good work which God regards as a 
condition of their being renewed, or on account of which he 
has promised them regeneration." "Now if his merciful act 
in their renewal to holiness, is in this sense unconditional, so 
is his previous purpose" to perform that act. Again we quote 
Professor Woods : "Does God save sinners unconditionally ? 
I answer, God would never have saved them, had not Christ 
interposed and made an atonement. This, then, is a condi- 
tion of human salvation." " The condition of eternal life to 
be performed by men, is repentance, faith, obedience. They 
can no more be saved without these than without the death 
of Christ." " Nor did God purpose to save them without 
these conditions." Still, as Dr. Woods also affirms, " these 

* Objections, &c. p. 83. f I°- PP- 101 > 104 - 

X Pp. 51, 156, 157. 

12 



134 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VII. 

are not conditions in the sense of merit." " Not by works of 
righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy 
he saved us." Titus 3:5.* We admit that in the sense 
just stated, Presbyterians do teach " unconditional election," 
meaning thereby to exclude all merit of good works, from the 
idea of salvation by grace. And so long as they believe the 
Scriptures, they can teach no otherwise. But this is not say- 
ing that men can be saved without faith and repentance. 

The case is even more obvious in regard to what Messrs. 
Foster and Simpson call " unconditional reprobation ;" i. e. 
" men are damned without any fault of theirs" — " given an 
existence which they are compelled to employ in sin," &c! 
If any thing further is necessary on this point, we refer to the 
Commentary of that eminently judicious writer, Dr. Scott : 
" Wickedness foreseen," he says, " is doubtless the cause of 
the Lord's purpose to condemn ; because it is of a man's self 
by nature, and God condemns none who do not justly deserve 
it. But holiness foreseen in a fallen creature cannot be the 
cause of his election ; because it is the effect of new-creating 
grace and never comes from any other source. Thus preteri- 
tion," continues Dr. Scott, u or non-election of a fallen crea- 
ture, is not gratuitous, but merited; election, shown in regen- 
eration, is gratuitous." " God may justly leave fallen crea- 
tures to themselves, to proceed in rebellion and sink into 
destruction. He might justly have left all : it is of infinite 
mercy that any are saved." " Thus he makes them (the 
saved) willing by regeneration, as says the Psalmist, l Thy 
people shall be willing in the day of thy power ;' but those 
who are not thus willing and diligent, are not made unwilling 
by any positive act of God ; but their unwillingness is the 
consequence of pride, self-will, &c." " The words, ' I will 
have mercy on whom I will have mercy,' imply that all de- 
served wrath : so that l the lump of clay in the hands of the 
potter,' must refer to men existing in God's foreknowledge as 
* Works, vol. iv. pp. 50, 51. 



Let. VII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 135 

fallen creatures." " The language used" (Rom. 9 : 22, 23), 
adds Dr. Scott, "viz. i vessels of wrath fitted for destruction/ 
is not that God had 'fitted them; 7 but of the vessels of mercy 
it is, 'he had afore prepared them unto glory/ " * The dif- 
ference in the two forms of speech is striking and instructive, 
as Dr. Scott well observes. Is this the same as " uncondi- 
tional reprobation," or that " God makes men sinners as a 
pretense to damn them ?" 

It would be easy to show that " Reprobation" as now ex- 
plained, is the common doctrine of the Presbyterian church. 
" God cannot punish creatures as such," says Dr. Ridgely, 
" but as criminals and rebels ; and he must be supposed to 
have considered them as such, when in his eternal purpose he 
determined to punish them." f Is this unconditional repro- 
bation ? In like manner, Dr. John Owen, that giant Calvin- 
ist of two centuries ago, second only to the illustrious Calvin 
himself, when accounting for the fact that " the work of the 
Holy Spirit is often ineffectual and imperfect upon the hearts 
of men," employs the following language : " They faint not 
for want of strength to proceed ; but by a free act of their 
own will, they refuse the grace which is further tendered unto 
them in the gospel. This will, and its resistance to the work 
of the Spirit, G-od is pleased in some to take away; * * * 
but the sin of men and their guilt is in it, where it is con- 
tinued." J Is this the same as to say : " God's eternal 
decree * * compels them to sin till they drop into ever- 
lasting burnings."§ 

Such, then, is the doctrine of Reprobation as held in the 
Presbyterian church. Woods, Scott, Ridgely, Owen, are 
standard authorities among sound Calvinists. To allege that 
such men did not comprehend the logical bearings of their 
own scheme of doctrine, but by such statements only involved 
themselves in "great confusion, perplexity and contradic- 

* See his Com. on Roin. 9. f Vol. i. p. 491. 

% On the Spirit, vol. i. p. 373. g Foster's " Objections," Ac. p. 100. 



136 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VIII 

tion," * will serve only to produce a smile on the countenance 
of every intelligent man. Especially when such charges 
originate with those who had previously prejudged Calvinism 
to be worse than Atheism. 



LETTER VIII. 

PREDESTINATION— ELECTION— REPROBATION. 

Rev. Sir — The doctrine of Election, as it has been stated 
in previous Letters, would seem to possess no element which 
ought to be offensive to any devout mind. It is God's pur- 
pose of grace and mercy toward his fallen creatures, and em- 
braces chiefly the following propositions : 

1. Man is by nature a guilty and ruined being, having 
hopelessly destroyed himself by his sin. 

2. His most merciful Sovereign provides, at infinite ex- 
pense, an all-sufficient remedy in the life and death of his Son. 

3. This remedy the whole race of guilty rebels, if left to 
their native stubbornness of heart, would certainly reject and 
despise, and thus increase their guilt and punishment. 

4. He sends his Holy Spirit to subdue and soften the hearts 
of all who ever become reconciled — having graciously pur- 
posed to pardon and restore as many of the rebel race as to 
his infinite wisdom seemed most consistent with his holy and 
beneficent authority in the universe. 

5. This system of grace was determined and agreed upon 
in the counsels of eternity, in view of the helpless ruin and 
misery of mankind — thus election is eternal, not a sudden 
and unexpected provision for the occasion. 

Such is the doctrine of election to eternal life. But the 
question is instantly presented : Why does not God save 
more — why not save all ? This inquiry is urged with great 
* Foster's " Objections," p. 29. 



Let. VIII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 137 

pertinacity by Universalists, and seems to have been adopted 
by some Arminians. We might retort upon the latter by 
inquiring : Why did not God provide salvation for fallen an- 
gels ? Why, since all power is in his hands, did he create 
two races of beings which were infallibly certain to be in- 
volved in sin, and many of them to suffer endless misery ? 
Why does he continue, even under the gospel, to bring into 
being thousands upon thousands in each succeeding genera- 
tion, who, he infallibly foresees, will, after a brief existence 
in this world, be plunged in the abyss of ceaseless sin and 
hopeless suffering? Yea, millions whose guilt and misery 
will be greatly increased by abused mercies — salvation offered 
but despised. 

These are questions which are too high for us — we cannot 
attain unto them — for who by searching can find out God? 
Yet they are equally embarrassing to the Arminian. In 
cases of treason or rebellion against human governments, we 
know that mercy has often been exercised toward a part, even 
those not less guilty than others; while the interests of jus- 
tice and the safety of the innocent seemed to demand the ex- 
ecution of the penalty of the law upon the rest. A procedure 
which is eminently wise and merciful, and even the dictate of 
benevolence in order to the stability and permanence of lawful 
authority, regarding, as it must, the welfare of the whole, 
may well be transferred from the Executive of Earth to the 
Supreme Executive of Heaven. Who is prepared to say that 
if the whole human family were saved, the interests of justice 
would not have suffered an eclipse ? Who will pretend to 
affirm that the welfare of the whole moral universe would not 
have been compromised — the order and peace of the creation 
been exposed to no disaster, if all men were restored to favor ? 

The Universalist exalts the goodness and compassion of 

God at the expense of his inflexible justice and holiness ; 

and some Arminians do likewise. "God," says Adam 

Clarke, " hates nothing that he has made. He cannot hate, 

12* 



138 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VIII. 

because he is loveP (Com. on 1 John 4 : 8.) We grant that 
God does not hate his creatures, considered merely as his 
creatures, apart from moral qualities. But did not he teach 
his ancient church to sing — " Thou hatest all workers of ini- 
quity?" Psalm 5:5. While he reveals himself as "the 
Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity, 
transgression and sin" — does he not add — "he will by no 
means clear the guilty" — "but visits the iniquity of the 
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth genera- 
tion of them that hate him ?" If in one place it is said, 
" God is love" — if, as Dr. Clarke suggests, He is never called 
holiness or justice, — he is called "a consuming fire." 
" Clouds and darkness are round about him ; yet justice and 
judgment (not love) are the habitation of his throne." It is 
not true, therefore, that according to the Scriptures, " love 
seems to be the essence of his nature, and all the other attri- 
butes to be only modifications of this."* Such representa- 
tions of the Great Being before whose throne cherubim and 
seraphim cry continually — " Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord 
of Hosts" — are serious errors and lead to mischievous results. 

In answer to the inquiry, Why are not all saved f genuine 
modesty will instruct both the Arminian and the Calvinist to 
say with our blessed Saviour, on a similar occasion — " Even 
so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." " Secret 
things belong unto the Lord our God ; but those which are 
revealed unto us and our children." 

III. A third topic now demands some further attention in 
connection with Predestination. It relates to the character 
and final destiny of those of mankind who will never realize 
the saving blessings of the gospel, but will perish under the 
Divine wrath. The views of Calvinists upon these subjects 
have furnished abundant matter of denunciation and misrep- 
resentation to our Methodist neighbors. " Does it come to 
pass that some are lost ?" inquires Dr. Fisk (Disc. pp. 26, 
*Clarke's Com. on John 5 : 8. • 



Let. VIII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 139 

27). "Then this was ordained. "Was sin necessary as & pre- 
tense to damn them ? Then this was ordained. They (Cal- 
vinists) must believe that G-od determined to create men and 
angels for the express purpose to damn them eternally; that 
he determined to introduce sin, and influence men to commit 
sin, and harden them in it ; that they might be fit subjects of 
his wrath," &c. &c. &c. Messrs. Foster and Simpson repeat 
the same story — " Men * * * are appointed to damna- 
tion without respect to their deeds." " Their character and 
conduct are forced upon them." " They were given an exist- 
ence which they were compelled to employ in sin, that a 
pretense might be furnished infinite cruelty, &c ! "* 

It requires the exercise of some patience to frame a calm 
answer to such arguments ! But if these Arminians had ever 
read the Presbyterian Confession, they would have found 
written, of those who perish, that " God was pleased to pass 
them by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their 
sin." (Conf. chap. 3, sec. 7.) And of those "who do 
never truly come to Jesus Christ," that "they are justly left 
in unbelief, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace 
offered them." (Conf. p. 180.) The reason, therefore, why 
they are not saved is, that they " do not come to Jesus Christ." 
They do not come to Jesus Christ, because " they are justly 
left in unbelief" And they are justly left in unbelief, be- 
cause of " their willful neglect and contempt of the grace 
offered them." " If they will add new obstinacy and hard- 
ness to their minds and hearts," says Dr. Owen, the great 
advocate of Calvinism; "if they will fortify themselves 
against the word with prejudice and dislike; if they will re- 
sist its operations through their lusts and corrupt affections, 
God may justly leave them to perish, and to be filled with 
the fruit of their own ways." " They perish not by a mere 
continuance in the state wherein the word finds them, but by 

* Objections, &c. pp. 98, 97, and a large part of the book is in the samo 
general style. 



140 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VIII. 

rejecting the counsel of God made known to them for their 
healing and recovery."* Is this the same with "influencing 
men to sin, and hardening them in it, as a pretense to damn 
them ?" The doctrine of permissive decrees is the common 
belief, as we have shown, of our ministers and churches — and 
therefore all such statements as those quoted from Dr. F. and 
Messrs. Foster and Simpson, arc harmless, except in deceiving 
the simple. 

But Dr. F. and his publishers of the General Conference, 
assume another offensive position. These, they say, are 
<•' smooth things/' designed to conceal the genuine features of 
Reprobation — and to support this new form of assault, they 
misquote the Presbyterian Confession (chap. 3) as follows: 
" Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, 
before the foundation of the world, hath chosen in Christ 
unto everlasting glory, without any foresight of faith or good 
icorks." From this they seem to infer that the reprobate are 
equally doomed " without foresight of unhelief and wicked 
works" — a misrepresentation entirely gratuitous. 

In the foregoing quotation from chap. 3, sec. 5, Dr. Fisk 
breaks off in the middle of a sentence, thus — "without any 
foresight of faith or good works — as conditions or causes 
moving him thereto" — which states simply the fact that as all 
men are " by nature the children of wrath," and merit only 
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, the de- 
sign of mercy, the whole plan of salvation in decree and exe- 
ecution, does not flow from any merit or goodness of the 
sinner " moving Him" (God) to elect him — the originating 
cause of election, and the ground of the determination to save 
the sinner, was not a "foresight of faith or good works" for of 
these he would have none until grace should bestow them ; 
but simply the sovereign mercy of God. And indeed, this 
seems to be the view of of Dr. F. himself, when he tells us 
(p. 15), " God did decree to elect in Christ all that should 
* Exposition of the Hebrews, vol. ii. p. 354. 



Let. VIII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 141 

believe unto salvation; and this decree proceeds from his 
own goodness, and is not built on any goodness of the crea- 
ture/'' But on the next page he abandons this sound Calvin- 
ism, and seriously asserts that " the sinner is elected because 
he receives Christ/' which is the same as to say, "he is 
elected because of something done by himself, some work of 
his own ; and if Dr. Fisk admit receiving Christ to be a good 
work (and certainly it is not an evil work), then he is 
elected because of Ms own goodness in receiving Christ, al- 
though this writer had said, a few lines above, that the de- 
cree to elect is not built on any goodness of the creature ! 
Alas, for a system that must be supported by such contradic- 
tions ! 

In a previous Letter several quotations were made from the 
great work of Turretine, who died in 1687, long before 
Arminian Methodism had an existence, and of course near a 
hundred years before she had such power as to force Calvinists 
into logical hiding places I What were his views of Reproba- 
tion ? According to Turretine it includes two acts, a negative 
and a positive. The negative act is that by which the repro- 
bate are passed by, and are not effectually called and regen- 
erated by the grace and Spirit of God. Regarded as involved 
in the common mass of sin and corruption, being " children 
of wrath even as others," God is under no obligation to save 
them, nor to bestow any favor upon them ; and the sins of 
which they are guilty, are the natural fruits of their depraved 
hearts, and follow the absence of restraining grace as naturally 
as darkness succeeds the absence of the sun. Nor is God the 
cause or author of their sins, except as the sun is the cause of 
cold or darkness. " God denies the grace which they them- 
selves are unwilling to receive, or to retain, and which they 
voluntarily despise, since they desire nothing less than to be 
under the control of the Holy Spirit. He does not deny 
grace that they may sin, but in just punishment for their 



142 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VIII. 

The positive act of reprobation, according to our author, a is 
that by which God has resolved to inflict merited punishment 
upon persons remaining in a state of nature, and having vol- 
untarily abused (sua sponte abusos) the light of nature and of 
the gospel ministered unto them." " Sin must necessarily be 
supposed as the condition in him who is reprobated ;" " nei- 
ther can there be in God the will to punish any but a sinner." 

" Reprobation," he continues, "may be considered abso- 
lutely or comparatively. In the absolute sense, it is rightly 
ascribed to the corruption of the natural man, which has made 
him justly an object of reprobation. When, therefore, it is 
inquired why any man is reprobated, it is well replied — 
because, by Ms sin, he was deserving of such treatment. But 
when the subject is regarded in the comparative light, when 
it is inquired why one wicked person is reprobated rather than 
another (cur unus prge alio reprobatur), it must be referred 
to the good pleasure of God, who elects or passes by according 
to his sovereign will : sin being common to all, cannot be 
alleged as the ground of this distinction." "God may be 
said to predestinate to sin and hardness of heart, not efficiently, 
but permissively, and so as to direct and overrule the event " 
— non effective, sed permissive et directive, quatenus illam 
permittere et ordinare decrevit. Thus he expressly disavows 
the idea of positively hardening the sinner. 

Dr. Dick takes the same ground and adopts substantially 
the same distinctions. In the negative act of pretention, he 
says, " God found men in sin, and in leaving them there, 
he did no wrong, and was chargeable with no cruelty." Of 
the positive act of condemnation, he adds — " There can be no 
will in God to punish any but sinners ; nor could the inten- 
tion be just without respect to disobedience." Yet when he 
views the subject in its comparative aspect, he says — "Both 
classes (elect and reprobate) appeared in the eyes of God to 
be guilty, polluted and worthy of death. Their sinfulness, 
therefore, could not be the reason of the rejection in the one 



Let. VIII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 143 

case, rather than in the other " — since it was common to both, 
and "did not cause the rejection of those who are saved."* "We 
do not ascribe to God an absolute power to consign his crea- 
tures to misery without consideration of their guilt. * * * 
Such a Being could never be the object of our confidence and 
love." " Pretention is the act of God in the character of a 
judge, fixing beforehand the punishment of the guilty; — sin 
is the cause of their destination to perdition." 

Ridgely, whose " Body of Divinity " has had a very wide 
circulation both in Europe and in this country, and was 
especially approved by the learned Professors of Aberdeen 
and other divines of Scotland, takes the same ground. "It 
is not to be supposed," he says, "that the decree has in itself 
a proper efficiency to produce the thing decreed; for then 
there would be no difference between an eternal decree and 
an eternal production of things, contrary to the Apostle — 
' whom he predestinated, them he glorified/ " Rom. 8 : 30. 
" God, in his eternal purpose, considered man as fallen * * 
and he might have left the whole world to perish without 
being liable to the charge of injustice." And in commenting 
on those words — " whom he will, he hardeneth " (Horn. 9 : 
18), he says, " God forbid that any one should think that 
there is a positive act contained in those words, as though God 
infused hardness into the hearts of any."f Pages might be 
transcribed to the same effect, from all our leading theologians. 
Yet such Calvinists as these Messrs. Foster and Simpson 
represent as teaching — "God made them sinners, that he 
might have a pretense to torment them for ever, to the glory 
of his sovereign justice." 

It has been proved in a former Letter,J that these Armin- 
ians hold and teach " the eternal and irresistible decree of 
Reprobation;" and according to Fletcher, "the number of 
the elect is certain," and of course the number of the repro- 

* Lecture 36. f Vol. i. p. 485, 489. 

| Letter VI. at the beginning. 



144 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VIII. 

bate is equally certain, in the Divine foreknowledge. When 
Mr. Wesley was forty years old, 1743, and had been nearly 
twenty years a minister, he wrote as follows : " I do not deny 
(though I cannot prove) that he (God) has unconditionally 
elected some persons to eternal glory."* But Arminians 
most vehemently argue that " unconditional election," in the 
case of adults, includes "unconditional reprobation." Of 
course Mr. Wesley could " not deny unconditional reproba- 
tion," as a necessary consequence of " unconditional election." 
The doctrine of efficacious, or irresistible grace, has been 
the topic of much denunciation to Arminians. But here, as 
in other cases, they generally contend with " a man of straw." 
Calvinists believe and teach that men may "resist the Holy 
Ghost" — "grieve and even quench the Spirit." But the 
question is not whether men often stifle the operations of the 
Spirit of grace, but whether, when it is the good pleasure of 
God to convert and save a sinner, he is able to employ suffi- 
cient power to secure his object ? In other words, whether 
God is able to use means and influences which will overcome 
his depraved heart and all its resistance; or whether the 
sinner may so resist the Spirit and grace of God, as to over- 
come the Almighty, and defeat his design or purpose of 
mercy ? Calvinists believe that God is able to conquer all 
resistance. Arminians take the opposite view, viz. that grace 
is not so irresistible, but that the sinner in many cases gets 
the better of Omnipotence. Of course it would be folly to 
pray to the Divine Being to do what he is unable to perform. 
On this scheme, the prayers should be offered to the sinner, 
to obtain his "good leave," as Wesley has it ; to be converted, 
and then the work would be easy. 

Mr. Wesley admits that " all men are by nature not only sick," 
but " dead in trespasses and sins" — and that "it is not pos- 

* Works, vol. iii. p. 2S9. The editor of his works says these "extreme 
concessions were made in the early part of his ministry, for peace sake" — a 
mistake 



Let. VIII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 145 

sible for them to do anything well till God raises them from 
the dead."* This agrees with the Methodist Article VIIL— 
"We have no power to do good works pleasant and accept- 
able without the grace of God, by Christ preventing us, that 
we may have a good will and working in us while we have that 
good will." How then are these helpless ones to be deliv- 
ered ? Mr. W. answers — " I believe that the grace of God 
which brings faith and thereby salvation into the soul, is ir- 
resistible at that moment." Again, "I do not deny that in 
some souls, the grace of God is so far irresistible that they 
cannot but believe and be finally saved."-f For the most 
part, however, he thinks " grace does not act irresistibly." 
But if it may act thus in some cases, consistently with man's 
free agency and the nature of true virtue and holiness, then 
it may so act in all cases. 

Speaking of Saul of Tarsus, Mr. Watson says : " Can a 
man be conceived further from Christianity than Saul, the 
moment prior to his reception of it." " His heart burned 
with rancor and cruelty." "A hotter brand surely was 
never quenched in the blood of the Saviour." "Only a mira- 
cle could reclaim such a man." J "It will be freely allowed," 
he adds, " that men are sometimes suddenly and irresistibly 
awakened to a sense of their guilt and danger by the Spirit of 
God. * * * Sometimes even independent of any ex- 
ternal means at all;"§ and Wesley says "there are exempt 
cases, wherein the overwhelming power of Divine grace does 
for a time work as irresistibly as lightning from heaven."T 

These and many similar statements from leading Armin- 
ians, would seem to teach with great clearness the doctrine of 

* Sermon on working out Salvation. If men are by nature "dead in tres- 
passes and sins/' and must be "begotten again," be "raised from tbe dead 
and quickened into life," " created anew in Christ Jesus," &c. it would ap- 
pear to be an easy question : What sort of power is required to perform 
these mighty acts ? 

| Works, vol. iii. p. 289 J Sermon on Conversion of Saul. 

§Inst. part 2, chap. 28. ^ Sermon on Spread of the Gospel. 

13 



146 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VIII. 

Paul — " It is God who works in you both to will and to do 
of his own good pleasure. " The great difficulty is to recon- 
cile these correct statements with others from the same gene- 
ral source. "Consult your own experience/' say Messrs. 
Foster and Simpson ) * * * " you will find that your 
consent was not produced by irresistible power." But how 
was it produced ? " At last, they say, in the utmost ex- 
tremity, forgetting all, by A mighty exertion, (viz. of 
your own power, as we are obliged to conclude) you embraced 
the atoning sacrifice — you believed." "Then came rest."* 
We can very readily believe, from the character of his book, 
that Mr. Foster's conversion was the result of some such 
mighty exertion of his own power ! 

The chief difference between the "irresistible grace" of 
Arminians and that of Calvinists, appears to be in this : we 
teach that when it pleases God according to his own purpose 
and grace, to change the heart and convert any particular 
soul, he can do it — he can work in that soul "both to 
will and to do of his own good pleasure," as Paul affirms. The 
Arminian, on the contrary, believes that this good pleasure 
and design of God to produce conversion is often frustrated 
and defeated, because the sinner refuses to make " the mighty 
exertion" necessary to his salvation ! Thus they tell us : 
God does for such " all that infinite wisdom, almighty power, 
and boundless love can do, without forcing them to be 
saved." *j* But if this be so, what folly to pray to God to do 
what he cannot do ! "Why not offer the prayers to the sinner, 
beseeching him to make "the mighty exertion" and thus 
enable God " to create a clean heart and renew a right spirit 
within him !" This is obviously the only right method of 
proceeding in the case, particularly as all men have "sufficient 
grace" and, of course, need no more ! 

So also, when explaining Rom. 8:28, "whom he did 
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the 
* Objections, &c. pp. 172, 173. f Doct. Tracts, p. 6. 



Let. VIII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 347 

image of his Son," Wesley says : " God predestinated to be 
conformed" u those who are conformable," i. e. that could be 
conformed. But if this has any meaning, it means that God 
undertakes the easy cases, which his power can manage ! 
But the very hard cases are not predestinated, not being con- 
formable ! 

It was shown, in a former Letter, that an intelligent being 
thus crossed and disappointed in his most benevolent plans 
and intentions, must be infinitely miserable ; but besides this, 
if one person may successfully resist the most gracious designs 
of the Infinite One, there was no certainty that any should 
be saved, even though salvation was bought with an infinite 
price. Thus the Divine promise to Christ : "He shall see of 
the travail of his soul, and the pleasure of the Lord shall 
prosper in his hand," might have been falsified. 

Thus Satan, according to Arminians, often has the mas- 
tery, and succeeds in controlling and subjecting the wills of 
men, where God fails of his designs. Nor is there any cer- 
tainty that in the future world the same result will not 
appear. Satan, indeed, may be bound; but if the human 
will of our first parents, in a state of perfect holiness, could 
not be controlled, but on the contrary defeated the purposes 
of the Almighty, who " used all means in his power to secure 
the accomplishment of his will," viz. that Adam as a free 
agent should remain holy — if, I say, such a disaster occurred 
in the garden of Eden, in defiance of all the efforts, designs 
and resources of God, why may it not occur in heaven ? It 
is easy to say that foreknowledge forbids the possibility of 
such a result. But that only increases the difficulty, by sug- 
gesting the idea of fate — a something independent of and 
controlling the goodness, and wisdom, and perfect plans of the 
Almighty ! Nor can any reason be assigned, on Arminian 
principles, why souls which so often "fall from grace" in 
this life, and that, too, after they have attained to u perfec- 
tion," may not fall even from heaven! The holy angels, toe, 



148 DIFFICULTIES OF AKMINIANISM. Let. VIII. 

have no better assurance of everlasting life. It follows, 
therefore, on Arminian principles, that at some future period, 
all the redeemed and all the holy angels may, like Adam, fall 
from purity, and the work of Christ be utterly and finally 
frustrated. It will not do to say that the promise of God 
forbids such a supposition. Perhaps he has promised what 
he cannot perform ! If our first parents and thousands of 
the unconverted have defeated his will to make or keep them 
holy — if his agency and will have proved so resistible, that 
thousands have successfully resisted it, in defiance of all the 
resources of infinite power and benevolence — who can tell 
but that it may be so in the future world ? Certainly no 
Arminian has any security on which to build his confidence 
of eternal glory. 

It has been demonstrated that irresistible grace was taught 
by Mr. "Wesley ; but it is taught by modern Arminians in a 
much more offensive sense. We prove this as follows : 

1. Dr. Clarke teaches that "as in Adam guilt came upon all 
men, so through Christ the free gift comes upon all men (in- 
cluding the heathen) unto justification of life" — tl aDd a 
measure of the Divine light is actually communicated to every 
heart." " God," he says, " has not denied to the Gentiles 
the light and influence of his Spirit."* This light, he 
teaches, is communicated to the Gentiles, " as in Adam guilt 
came upon all men •" which, so far as relates to his posterity, 
is, of course, irresistible. 

Mr. Fletcher also teaches, in the most express terms, the 
irresistible nature of this universal grace, thus : " The bene- 
fits of * * * a day of salvation and of tha free gift came 
upon all men to the justification mentioned, Rom. 5 : 18 ; 
and so far from depending on the will of the creature, * * 
they depend no more upon us than our sight and the 
light of the sun! All those blessings * * * are 
irresistibly bestowed upon us ior Christ's sake, * * * 
* Com. on Rom. 5. 



Let. VIII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 149 

As the Divine image * * * was at first bestowed 
upon our first parents, * * * our penitential grace 
conies immediately and irresistibly from God our Redeemer. 
* *.' * I say irresistibly ; because God does not leave to 
our option whether we shall receive a talent of redeeming 
grace or not, any more than he left it to Adam's choice 
whether he should receive five talents of creative grace or 
not." * From these extracts, it appears that this universal 
grace which "lighteneth every man that cometh into the 
world," is irresistible as the gift of creation, or the original 
image of God. But Mr. Wesley affirms "that salvation by 
irresistible grace makes man a mere machine, and conse- 
quently not rewardable or punishable." f How then can it 
be true, according to Dr. Clarke, "that as this (universal) 
grace is offered, so it may be received" — and "all may im- 
prove and retain the grace they receive," J i. e. this irresist- 
ible grace ? In what proper sense can " a mere machine" 
receive and improve grace ? Will it be replied, that this 
" irresistible grace" is not " salvation," but only the begin- 
ning of salvation ? Still this does not mend the matter ) for 
how can " a mere machine" receive and improve even these 
beginnings of salvation ? And especially how can this 
" working of a mere machine" enable it to get more grace as 
the reward of improving its irresistible grace ? And how 
can the machine, when thus worked by irresistible grace, be- 
come punishable for not improving it ? These, we confess, 
are mysteries in Arminian theology which we have never 
seen cleared up. 

2. But there is a further very serious difficulty attending 
this Arminian doctrine of universal, irresistible grace. It is 
to this grace that all the sins and sufferings of mankind are 
attributable. Without this "irresistible grace," they assure 
us, the posterity of Adam could have neither sinned, nor 
suffered at all ! We prove it thus :• 
* Genuine Creed, Art. 3 f Doct. Tracts, p. 50. £ Com. on Rom. 5 : 15. 

13* 



150 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VIII. 

(1.) Says Dr. Clarke — "This heavenly light shines into 
the soul of every man/' * * * and through this light 
* * * what is termed conscience among men is produced. 
No man could discern good from evil, were it not for this 
light thus supernaturally and graciously restored.* And in 
his Discourses before quoted (p. 77), Dr. C. says — " Had man 
been left just as he was when he fell, he in all probability 
had been utterly insalvable, as he appears to have lost all his 
spiritual light * * * even his moral feeling. ," "So 
would have been all his posterity, had not some gracious 
principle (irresistible grace) been supernaturally restored, to 
give them some knowledge of good and evil, virtue and vice, 
and thus bring them into a salvable state." But if these po- 
sitions be correct, then the condition of mankind by the fall, 
would have evidently been such that they could neither sin 
nor be punished, since they had blotted out conscience, moral 
feeling and all sense of right and wrong — in other words, had 
ceased to be free, intelligent moral agents, and were no bet- 
ter than mere machines. Thus all their sins are of free, ir- 
resistible grace ! 

(2.) Fletcher teaches the same doctrine of "gracious free 
agency."^ And the General Conference in their " Doctrinal 
Tracts"! say — " Man hath his freedom of will, not naturally, 
but by grace," i. e. by " irresistible grace." But mankind 
without " freedom of will," could of course commit no sin, nor 
justly suffer any punishment. It follows, therefore, that to 
"irresistible grace," Arminian grace, all the crimes, pollu- 
tions, sufferings and sorrows of the posterity of Adam are to 
be ascribed ! Such is the wonderful " light which lighten- 
eth every man that cometh into the world." Besides, if " ir- 
resistible grace" makes man " a mere machine," how could it 
possibly restore "freedom of will" — i. e. to a "mere ma- 
chine !" 

* Com. on John 1:9. f Genuine Creed, Art. 4. 

J Tract on Election and Reprobation, p. 154. 



Let. VIII. ELECTION — REPROBATION. 151 

(3.) But worse than all — this doctrine of "irresistible 
grace" is in fact irresistible reprobation to eternal death. Let 
us look closely at this matter. — 

This grace, according to Arminians, is bestowed irresistibly 
upon all men of every clime, age and nation, and had been 
given to those who were in hell when Christ died. Without 
it, they say, they could not have sinned, nor could they have 
suffered. What object, therefore, had the God of mercy in 
view in forcing this " irresistible grace" upon those to whom 
he infallibly foresaw it would result in their own destruction ? 
Fletcher answers — " It reproves their sins, it galls their con- 
sciences, it renders them inexcusable, * * * it clears 
God's justice, it shows that the Judge of all the earth does 
no wrong, and it begins in this world the just punishment 
which righteous vengeance will complete in the next." These, 
he says, are u the less desirable effects" of "gracious free 
agency," or " irresistible grace." Here again is the old dif- 
ficulty — for without this grace, men would have been excus- 
able and God could not have justly punished them ! And as 
all except Universalists, admit that thousands perish under 
this system of Arminian grace, and as they were infallibly 
known to the author of this grace before he forced it irre- 
sistibly upon them, does not this amount to the doctrine 
of unconditional reprobation in its worst sense, viz. it forci- 
bly deprives men of all valid excuse for their conduct, makes 
it just in God to punish them, and begins their punishment 
even in this world, preparatory to " the righteous vengeance" 
of the next : and these are " desirable effects" of grace ! 
Would it not have been much more " desirable" to withhold 
this " irresistible grace" from all who were known as infal- 
libly certain to misimprove it and perish by means of it ? 
How cruel to force this grace upon them — " which they 
never at any period consented to and which they never could 
avoid." "Does not God know that these poor wretches 
cannot help" this " irresistible grace V " How came these 



152 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IX. 

miserable creatures in their condition of sin and wretchedness ? 
They were put there by the decree of irresistible grace."* 

In conclusion of this whole subject, it is obvious that irre- 
sistible " unconditional reprobation" is an Arminian doctrine. 
Nor is it less plain, that " unconditional reprobation" is no 
part of Presbyterianism. Such writers as Fletcher, Wesley, 
Fisk, &c. who make this charge, are themselves the guilty 
persons, We hold that the finally lost are " doomed for 
their sins," which they freely commit. If the Arminian 
reply — Were not their sins decreed ? We answer — Yes ; they 
were decreed jpermissively , not otherwise. Calvinists teach 
no " irresistible grace" or any other Divine influence to make 
men guilty, without excuse, and exposed to the vengeance 
of eternal fire ! This is Arminianism — pure and unmixed. 
Thus they trace the sins and sufferings of guiltless men di- 
rectly to the will of the Creator. 



LETTEE IX. 

THE ATONEMENT, ITS NATURE AND EXTENT. 

Rev. Sir — Upon the importance of scriptural views of the 
great fundamental doctrine of Atonement, Arminians and 
Calvinists are agreed. Error here is like disease of the heart 
— its morbid influence will be felt in every extremity of the 
system. Let us look at this subject in its Arminian aspects. 

III. The Difficulties of Arminian Methodism in 

20NNECTION WITH THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 

In the 20th Article of your system, we read as follows : 
" The offering of Christ is that perfect redemption, propitia- 

* Objections, &c. pp. 124, 97, 83, 136, 166. In these extracts we have 
substituted " irresistible grace" for " corruption," " depravity," &c. of the 
original. 



Let. IX. NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 153 

tion, and satisfaction for all the sins of the ivhole world, both 
original and actual." Before stating our objections to this 
article, it may be proper to mention some points in which we 
agree. So far as regards the essential nature of the work of 
redemption, we judge your article expresses the truth, viz. 
"that Christ," as affirmed by Watson, "died for us as a sub- 
stitute, bore the punishment due to our offenses ;" and after 
quoting the texts, " he was wounded for our transgressions, 
he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our 
peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed " — 
Watson adds : " these passages prove a substitution, a suffer- 
ing in our stead " — " our iniquities, (i. e. their punishment) 
are made to meet on him, they are laid upon him, the penalty 
is exacted from him." " The death of Christ," he adds, " is 
explicitly represented in the New Testament as penal, which 
it could not be in any other way than by his taking our place 
and suffering in our stead." To sustain these views, he quotes 
largely such passages as these : " Christ offered one sacrifice 
for sins — gave himself for our sins " — "the Son of man came 
to give his life a ransom for many " — "Christ hath redeemed 
us from the curse of the lata, being made a curse for us," &c* 

To this testimony, Rev. N. L. Bangs adds : " The law of 
G-od being completely satisfied by the obedience of Christ unto 
death, it can have no just demands upon those for whom satis- 
faction was made. And if the law has no demand, there can 
be no condemnation."-)- Now if these statements be true, as 
we believe them to be, it seems to the Calvinist a most natural 
and necessary inference that all this could not have been done 
"for all the sins of those who are finally lost" — therefore not 
"for all the sins of the whole world." But of this more 
hereafter. 

We also agree with Arminians, that the value of our Lord's 
satisfaction, in itself considered, is infinite, that it possesses 
an intrinsic sufficiency of meritorious obedience and sufferings, 
* Theol. Inst, part 2, chap. 20. f Reformor Reformed, p. 186. 



154 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IX. 

to save the whole of Adam's race. This follows from the 
nature of his work, the infinite dignity of his person, and from 
the effect of the representative principle on which he acted. 
Thus, as Dr. Miller has said — Christ's obedience and sufferings 
were such " that nothing more would have been necessary if all 
mankind had been saved — there would have been no scanti- 
ness in the provision of mercy — but an ample foundation is 
laid for a sincere offer of salvation to all who hear the gospel." 
Of course Calvinists regard it as a blessed privilege as well as 
a duty, to offer salvation through the blood of atonement to 
all men of every class and generation. " Whosoever will, let 
him come, and take of the waters of life freely." Why then 
do we object to the Article as already quoted? 

First, because it is irreconcilably at variance with other 
features of the Arminian system. Both parties agree that in 
the Atonement man is contemplated as fallen. But it has 
beeni abundantly shown in previous Letters, especially when 
we were ccnsidering the subject of " Original Sin," that man 
in his fallen state " had lost," if Arminians speak the truth, 
" his freedom of will," and was no longer a free agent. Of 
course he was incapable of sinning; and his actions were no 
longer punishable. Adam, indeed, sinned freely, in eating the 
forbidden fruit, and for him an atonement was necessary. 
But for all his posterity, the first and principal effect of the 
atonement was to render them "inexcusable" and expose 
them to sin and misery here, and eternal vengeance hereafter ! 
But can these be considered as the distinguished fruits of 
infinite mercy and grace ? Is this the character, according to 
the Scriptures, of G-od's " unspeakable gift?" And how can 
our blessed Lord be said to have made " a perfect satisfaction 
for all the sins " of those, who but for his satisfaction, would 
have had no sins ? And then as to those who die in infancy, 
" they were born corrupt and so cannot be guilty for this." 
" Were they to blame for an existence and nature which were 
forced upon them — which never at any period they consented 



Let. IX. NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 155 

to, and which they never could avoid." * These infants had 
never committed any actual sin, and were not to blame for 
their corrupt nature ! It follows that they had no need of any 
" satisfaction for sin," for they were not sinners I How then 
could Christ have made a " perfect satisfaction " to Divine 
justice for the sins of "the whole world?" Especially how 
can he be said to have bought salvation for those who die 
infants, since they needed no salvation ? 

2. "We object to the Article that it teaches universal sal- 
vation. If all of every description of character have a "perfect 
propitiation and satisfaction" completed for them, how can 
any be lost? Wesley answers — "Because they believe not 
on the Son of Grod." But is not this unbelief a sin, yea, the 
worst of sins ? Then the Article declares that a perfect satis- 
faction has been made for it, as well as for all other sins. How 
then can it be a cause of perdition ? If it be just to punish 
this sin with everlasting torments, after a " perfect propitiation 
and satisfaction " have been made for it, it will be equally just 
and right to punish all sin for which Christ died. Both law 
and justice, then, will take the redeemed sinner by the throat 
at the day of judgment, and each urge its demand, " pay me 
what thou owest," as inexorably as though no Saviour had 
ever suffered and died for his salvation. Who then can be 
saved ? 

Again : Both parties teach that unbelief is a great sin — 
but the Article declares that all sin is atoned for by "a perfect 
satisfaction," and we are assured that " the law is perfectly 
Satisfied and can have no just demand upon those for whom 
satisfaction was made." Such are the express words employed 
by Dr. Bangs. How then can the law condemn, when its 
penalty is perfectly paid ? How can justice hold the criminal 
bound, after he has been perfectly redeemed ? How can the 
Judge pronounce sentence when he has been perfectly satis- 
fied ? Most manifestly, therefore, this article, when inter- 

• * Objections, pp. 166, 125. 



156 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IX. 

preted on Methodist principles, teaches the doctrine of the 
salvation of all, without exception. 

To evade these logical conclusions, the Arminian abandons 
the sound doctrine of his 20th Article. He attempts to 
explain away the obvious meaning of the terms as follows : 
" that by the death of Christ, the sins of every man are ren- 
dered remissible, and that salvation is consequently attainable 
by every man."* Thus the benefits of the " perfect satisfac- 
tion" to Divine justice, by which all legal demands are can- 
celed, are nevertheless contingent, i. e. u are poised on the 
possibility of believing or not believing, leaving it to the will 
of intelligent beings to turn the scale."")" But if this be the 
true doctrine, then the Scriptures must teach a mere condi- 
tional atonement, and the sinner stands justly exposed to the 
whole penalty — though Watson and Bangs say, " Christ bore 
the punishment, met the just demands due to our offenses!" 
And if the result had been that all mankind had inclined the 
scale of their will the wrong way, as many do, the " perfect 
satisfaction," the bearing of the punishment by our Lord, must 
have been utterly in vain. But is this consistent with the 
promise made by the Father to the Son — " thy people shall 
be willing in the day of thy power." Ps. 110. So when the 
inspired writers tell us — " The king's heart is in the hand of 
the Lord as the rivers of water ; he turneth it whithersoever 
he will " — " It is G-od who worketh in you both to will and 
to do of his own good pleasure " — these and scores of similar 
passages are subject to a condition — provided the soul will con- 
sent to poise the scale the right way I 

The Arminian scheme is therefore totally at " variance 
with the very nature of the Saviour's work. It is an atone- 
ment ; that is, a reconciliation ; and to talk of his making 
an atonement for such as are never reconciled, is a contradic- 
tion in terms; it is to say he makes atonement (at-one- 
ment, as the word is ; makes God and man at one), and yet 
* Watson's Inst. chap. 25. f Clarke's Com. on Acts 2. 



Let. IX. NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 157 

makes no atonement in the case of the same individuals. He 
is said to give satisfaction for sin ; but how can he have 
given satisfaction for the sins of those on whom the law is to 
take satisfaction eternally ? He i's said to appease Divine 
justice; but can the justice of God be appeased in the case 
of those against whom its flaming sword shall awake for ever ? 
— to expiate our offenses ; but how can those sins for which 
the guilty perpetrators are to suffer everlastingly, have been 
expiated ? — to redeem from the curse of the law ; but how 
can those who are to be kept in eternal thraldom, have re- 
demption through his blood? — to propitiate the wrath of 
God ; but how can those be interested in his propitiation 
who are the objects of Jehovah's unceasing displeasure ? It 
supposes him to be the Saviour of those who are never saved, 
the Redeemer of those who are never redeemed, the Deliverer 
of thousands who are never delivered, but remain under eter- 
nal condemnation. " * To say that, although made for all, 
it does not save some, because they do not believe, is to over- 
look the fact that thousands have never heard the gospel; 
and "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not 
heard ?" — and " how shall they call on him in whom they 
have not believed?" — and how shall they be saved, if "they 
call not on the name of the Lord ?" Rom. 10 : 13, 14. The 
argument is from the pen of inspiration. " Let God be true." 
3. We object to this doctrine, because it cannot be sup- 
ported by its ablest advocates, without arraying the designs 
and purposes of God against each other. The Arminian 
believes that the blood of the Sacrifice was shed with the 
design on the part of God, to save all mankind. But Watson 
affirms expressly, that " what the creature will do is known 
beforehand with a perfect prescience;" "and what God has 
determined to DO in consequence, is known and purposed 
from eternity in view of the actual circumstances. " Well, if 
Christ perfectly and infallibly knew those who would continue 
* Symington on Atonement, p. 192. 

14 



158 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IX. 

in sin and perish, and had "purposed from eternity" to destroy 
them, is it reasonable to suppose he died with a design or 
purpose to save them ? In other words, that he died with a 
purpose to save the very persons whom he had before pur- 
posed to destroy! ! And yet Watson strongly objects to "the 
Calvinistic opinion/' because it implies that G-od " never 
intended" to save a sinner whom "from eternity" he had 
"purposed" or intended to destroy ! ! 

So also, Messrs. Foster and Simpson, after quoting Dr. 
Rice, say : " This quotation * * * teaches that Christ 
did not die with a design to save all men." * Of course, 
they hold that our blessed Lord " did die with a design 
to save all mankind." Yet Arminians seriously tell us, 
"G-od from the foundation of the world (of course, before 
men were born,) did foreknow * * * all not believing. 
And, according to this, his foreknowledge, * * * refused 
or reprobated all disobedient unbelievers, as such, to damna- 
tion." f In other words, the design or purpose to "refuse 
or reprobate to damnation" was formed from eternity ; and 
the design or purpose to save those same persons was in- 
cluded in Christ's death ! Thus he died with a purpose to 
save the identical persons he had from eternity purposed to 
destroy ! 

The question of the Extent of the Atonement is not fairly 
stated by Watson : " Whether our Lord Jesus Christ did so 
die for all men, as to make salvation attainable by all !" (vol. 
ii. p. 285.) We maintain the infinite intrinsic value of 
Christ's finished work j and if this writer mean that with 
the light, teaching and special influences of the Holy Spirit, 
salvation is attainable by all at some period during their 
natural life (not attainable when Christ died, and thousands 
were already in the prison of despair), we have no contro- 
versy with him ; but if he mean, attainable without the spe- 
cial aid of the Spirit, this is true of no one, unless it be true 
• Objoctions, p. 201. f Doct. Tracts, p. 140. 



Let. IX. EXTENT OE THE ATONEMENT. 159 

that saints beget themselves unto a lively hope, instead of being 
" begotten of God." The true hinge of the controversy is 
the design of God in sending his Son into the world, and the 
intention of Christ in expiring on the cross.* If the design 
and intention were to save all, while many are not saved, the 
plan of the great God has been entirely frustrated, and he 
has been disconcerted and disappointed. Besides, if this has 
occurred in this life, under the mediatorial reign of the Son 
of God, what certainty can there be that it will not occur in 
the future world ? God indeed designs that saints shall be 
for ever holy and happy ; and on the strength of his intention 
has promised them an eternal inheritance. But if his plan 
has once met with defeat and disappointment, what assurance 
can we have that it will not be so again ? It may be replied, 
that God's infallible foreknowledge proves it certain that his 
promise will not fail. But, on the Arminian scheme, if the 
designs and plans of Deity are defeated and fail, why may not 
also his foreknowledge 1 Besides, God's infallible foreknow- 
ledge demonstrates the absurdity of the idea, that his designs 
ever do fail. What can be more derogatory to the character 
of " the only wise God/' than to suppose him to form designs 
and plans, and employ means for their execution, while he is 
infallibly certain that they will be utterly frustrated and de- 
feated ! For example, he designs to save a sinner, whom he 
infallibly knows will die in sin, and whom he designs, in con- 
sequence of his sin, to punish for ever ! Still he designs to 
save him, and employs large and expensive means to secure 
the very result which he designs shall never be secured. Dr. 
Clarke's is the best remedy here : viz. to suppose that God 
does not choose to know certain events, when such knowledge 
is rather inconvenient to a favorite theory ! 

4. We object to the Arminian doctrine, because in repre- 

* " Non quaeritur," says Turretine, " de pretio et sufficientia mortis 
Christi. Sed agitur de destinatione Dei mittentis filium in mundum, et de 
intentione Christi morientis." — Loc. Dec. Quart. Qticestio 14. 



160 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IX. 

senting the design of Christ's death to be to save alJ, it con- 
tradicts many express passages of Scripture. There we dis- 
cover the design of the Atonement revealed in such terms as 
the following : " Christ loved the CHURCH and gave himself 
for IT, that he might sanctify and cleanse it — that he might 
present to himself a glorious church, not having spot or 
wrinkle, but that it should be holy and without blemish." 
Eph. 5:25, 26. Again it is, "That he might redeem us 
from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, 
zealous of good works." Titus 2 : 14. Again, " That we 
might live through him." 1 John 4 : 9. Again, " He 
suffered the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to 
God." 1 Pet. 3:18. Again, "He was made sin for us, 
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 
2 Cor. 5 : 21. Again, "He bare our sins in his own body, 
that we being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness." 
1 Pet. 2:24. And even when Grod is said to have "so 
loved the world," it is, that " whosoever believeth on 
him, should not perish." In all these passages, with many 
more that might be adduced, there is connected with the 
atonement a special design of mercy, which can in no way be 
supposed to pertain to those who shall finally perish. For 
example, did the Saviour design " to sanctify and cleanse" — 
"to present without spot or wrinkle," "holy and without 
blemish" — "to redeem from all iniquity, that they might 
live" — " to bring to G-od" — and "make the righteousness of 
G-od in him". — did he design these infinite favors for those, 
who he " knew beforehand with a perfect prescience," would 
live and die in sin, and whom he had "purposed from eter- 
nity in view of the actual circumstances," to destroy, as 
Watson himself is compelled to admit ? Surely no unpreju- 
diced person can suppose that the design of the Redeemer's 
death was to save these unhappy ones, equally with those 
who are purified from sin, and crowned with glory, honor and 
immortality. 



Let. IX. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 161 

The limitation is even more strikingly brought into view in 
the following passages : u For the transgression of my peo- 
ple was he stricken." "By his knowledge shall my right- 
eous servant justify MANY; for he shall bear their iniquities." 
Is. 53 : 8, 11. "I lay down my life for the sheep." 
John 10 : 15. " I pray for them ; I pray not for the world, 
but for them which thou hast given me." John 17:9. 
Can any reasonable person imagine that these texts are con- 
sistent with the supposition that Christ "prayed," "was 
stricken," " bore the iniquities," and " laid down his life," 
equally for all mankind ? On the principles of the Armin- 
ian, Christ's love in giving himself for his people, his church, 
which is compared to the peculiar special affection of the hus- 
band for his spouse, means after all, nothing more than the 
universal good will or compassion which he entertained 
equally for all others. Can this be true ? He " shall justify 
many." Why? Because "he shall bear their iniquities." 
But if he bore the iniquities of all, he will justify all. He 
is the good Shephebd. What is the proof? He lays "down 
his life for the sheep." But if he laid down his life equally 
for those who never were, nor ever will be his sheep, what 
becomes of the proof of his peculiar care and kindness as the 
good Shepherd ? Or will it be said, his sheep mean all 
mankind ? The Shepherd will himself give a different decis- 
ion " at that day." " Then shall the king say to them on 
his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the 
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." 
Matt. 25 : 34. 

5. We object further, that Christ in his character of In 
tercessor, clearly limits the design of his death. Thus, John 
17 : 9, "I pray for them : I pray not for the world, but for 
them which thou hast given me." For what purpose did he 
pray? "That he (Christ) should give eternal life to as 
many as thou hast given him." John 17:2. They were 
not of the world. But were there not others for whom he 
14* 



162 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IX. 

prayed ? " Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also 
which shall believe on me through their word." John 
17:20. And what is the burden of his prayer? "That 
they also whom thou hast given me, be with me where lam." 
The Arminian believes that Christ died for all, though he 
prays or intercedes only for some. He gives his life for 
them, but will not give his 'prayers I Or if, in express con- 
tradiction of the Saviour, he asserts that he prays for the 
world, or all mankind, then he must believe that his prayer 
does not prevail, in many instances, that they " may be with 
him where he is" — though he himself has said, "I know that 
thou hearest me always" 

Another part of the all-prevalent intercession of Christ is, 
to secure the gift of the Comforter, that he may "abide with 
his people forever." John 14 : 16. To his success in pro- 
curing this best of all gifts, the Apostle alludes (Gal. 4 : 4, 6), 
"God sent forth his Son to redeem them that were under the 
law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." " And 
because ye are sons, Glod hath sent forth the Spirit of his 
Son into your hearts." The Arminian doctrine requires us 
to believe that Christ hath redeemed thousands, with whom 
the Comforter does not abide ; who disappoint and frustrate 
his design that they should receive the adoption of sons. He 
is unable to conquer their reluctance, and make them " will- 
ing in the day of his power." 

6. It is a very serious objection to the Arminian scheme, 
that it represents the plans and merciful efforts of the persons 
of the adorable Godhead as crossing each other; and thou- 
sands are redeemed by Christ who are never horn of the 
Spirit, but continue under the bondage of corruption, and lie 
down in everlasting sorrow. But if this be possible, what 
reason can be given why the death of Christ might not have 
been utterly and forever unavailing, with respect to the whole 
human race ? Besides, so far is it from being true that all 
are redeemed, that it is the song of the ransomed in heaven — 



Let. IX. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 103 

" Thou bast redeemed us to God out of every kindred, and 
tongue, and people, and nation." Rev. 5:9. If it be in- 
quired, wby is the atonement made effectual for only a part 
of the race of mankind ? — we inquire in turn, wby was it 
provided for any ? wby provided for man, and not for tbe an- 
gels wbo kept not tbeir first estate ? Wby is tbe way of one 
man bedged up witb a thousand means and influences to turn 
bis feet into tbe path of peace, while another is beset witb 
almost every form of allurement to vice and ruin ? " Wby 
is it," to employ tbe language of Watson, "that men are 
sometimes irresistibly awakened to a sense of their guilt 
and danger by tbe Spirit of G-od" — "and sometimes indepen- 
dent of any external means at all" — (vol. ii. p. 447) — while 
others, in the use of all tbe ordinary means, remain insensi- 
ble to tbe last ? Why did the Saviour give thanks that these 
things were hid from the wise and prudent, from the self- 
righteous, and the formalist, while publicans and harlots go 
into the kingdom of grace and glory ? " Even so, Father, 
for so it seemed good in thy sight." 

7. Tbe difficulties multiply continually in tbe way of the 
Arminian Article before quoted, as we examine tbe inspired 
records. Christ's "people" are called "his church which be 
hath purchased with his own blood." Acts 20 : 28. But if 
Arminianism be true, be equally purchased all mankind! 
He was tbeir "surety" to obtain tbeir eternal salvation — they 
are his "peculiar people," his spiritual seed (Psalm 22:30), 
whom the Father loved and "yave him out of the world," — 
whom he loved and gave himself for (Eph. 5:25), his body, 
his sheep, his elect. Can this be said of all mankind ? 

The "one offering" of the cross is never said to be de- 
signed merely to put men into a salvable state, by procuring 
power and liberty for God to offer lower terms of salvation to 
mankind — but as intended for actually saving bis people 
"from their sins" and the consequent miseries. His satis- 
faction to law and justice is represented to have been an in- 



164 DIFFICULTIES OF AHMINIANISM.. Let. IX. 

finitely meritorious price or ransom paid for inestimable 
"benefits, pardon, reconciliation, acceptance, adoption, sanctifi- 
cation, victory, glorification. Thus as Adam's disobedience 
was effectual to condemn all bis natural seed, so Christ's obe- 
dience unto death equally and to like extent justifies, a makes 
righteous," all his church, his spiritual posterity. Rom. 
5:12-21. So also salvation is styled "the purchased pos- 
session" (Eph. 1 : 14), which cannot mean merely " a salv- 
able state." 

8. If Christ died equally for all men, as much for the lost 
as for the saved, then in a great measure he has lost his end 
or object in the great work of Redemption — " either through 
want of wisdom he laid his plan extremely ill, or through 
want of power or mercy he is unable to execute it. Thus he 
must have thrown away his infinitely precious life for mil- 
lions who are never saved — for millions who were at that 
very time in hell and beyond the reach of mercy — for mil- 
lions whom he never informs of it and never calls to believe 
on his name, any more than if they were devils."* Such 
are some of the hopeful fruits of the dogma, which asserts the 
design of the Redeemer's death to have been to save all, as 
much Cain and Judas, as John and Paul; as much those 
who were in hell, as those who inherit heaven. If to have 
the wisest, and best, and most merciful designs thwarted, 
and the kindest intentions and purposes disappointed of their 
execution by wicked creatures, can produce vexation and cha- 
grin, the blessed Redeemer, on Methodist principles, must be 
infinitely mortified and miserable. 

9. The same train of scriptural reasoning will suffice to re- 
fute an Arminian evasion. It has been said that "although 
a 'perfect satisfaction' was offered for all men, yet it was not 
accepted for their actual sins (in which is included unbelief), 
until men comply with the gospel conditions." What a de- 
grading view of the glorious work of redemption is this ! The 

* John Brown of Haddington. 



Let. IX. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 165 

blessed Jesus came into this world of guilt, lived a life of 
sorrows, and died a death of infamy, " to finish the work" his 
Father had given him to do for the salvation of men. " It is 
finished," he cried upon the cross, and gave up the ghost. 
The work was completed; a " perfect redemption, propitiation 
and satisfaction/' were made for lost sinners. But after all 
these sufferings, and sorrows, and groans, and tears, and 
blood, it availeih nothing; "it is not accepted." Why? 
because men do not repent and believe ! 

But is it not said that the Lord Jesus not merely satisfied, 
but u magnified the law and made it honorable *" that " Grod is 
well pleased for his righteousness' sake ;" that "He is exalted 
ii Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remis- 
sion of sins ;" and th&t faith which is the gift of God, is also a 
blessed fruit produced by his death and inwrought by his 
Spirit? Thus, if the Scriptures speak the truth, both faith 
and repentance are the fruits of his sacrifice, the gifts of his 
Holy Spirit. Christ is " the author and finisher of our 
faith." Unbelief and impenitence are the thick clouds which 
dissolve in the blessed beams of "the Sun of righteousness." 
And so far from these preventing the acceptance on the part 
of the Judge of the offered atonement, they are a main part 
of the evil, the deadly malady which it was designed to heal. 
So he understood the subject who said, " If, when we were 
enemies, we were reconciled to Grod by the death of his Son, 
much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 
He that spared not his own Son, but freely gave him up for 
us all, how shall he not with him free!?/ give us all things ?" 
So also, " I lay down my life for my sheep, and they shall 
never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand." 
Do these passages teach an atonement offered, but not ac- 
cepted ? Shall sinful man venture to reverse these promises 
of Almighty Grod, and afiirm, " Christ lays down his life for 
his sheep" (or all mankind), and thousands of them do perish, 
and are plucked out of his hand ? He that spared not his 



\ 



166 DIFFICULTIES OF ATIMINIANISM. Let. IX. 

own Son, but freely gave him up for us all, will not with him 
freely give us all things — will not grant us faith and repent- 
ance, the gifts of his Spirit, through the blood of atonement. 
Shall a sinner, redeemed by the omnipotent arm of Jehovah, 
be a bond-slave of Satan for ever ? Shall he bestow the high- 
est blessing at his disposal, and deny a minor benefit ? Shall 
he perform the greater, but refuse the less ? All the perfec- 
tions of the ever blessed Grod conspire to answer, No ! 

10. A further difficulty presses upon the aforesaid Article 
of Methodist faith. It represents the ever blessed God in a 
light in which it is impossible to shield his character from 
cruelty and injustice. We believe it can be fairly and logi- 
cally substantiated, that the doctrine of universal atonement, 
as taught by Methodists, implies a foul aspersion upon the 
character of Jehovah. For, notwithstanding her avowed be- 
lief of a " perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction, 
for all the sins of the whole world/' Methodism teaches that 
thousands of the human family will be driven away into un- 
quenchable fire, to satisfy Divine justice for sins for which 
there is already paid a perfect satisfaction by the all-perfect 
Saviour. In other words, that a G-od of infinite mercy, after 
his holy law and his impartial justice have been " perfectly" 
satisfied for all sin, will demand everlasting sufferings of the 
sinner, as a further satisfaction ; which is, to require a double 
payment of the debt ; the first made by Christ, full and per- 
fect, yet so imperfect, as to require the sufferings of the sin- 
ner to all eternity to complete it — a satisfaction (made perfect 
by Christ) which does not satisfy; and the sinner is con- 
demned to suffer for ever to make perfection perfect ; a per- 
fect satisfaction, which shall be perfectly satisfactory ! 

Again : It is not denied, that it was infallibly known to 
Christ, when about to " die the accursed death/' that many 
would not be saved by his sacrifice ; but that their guilt and 
punishment would be greatly aggravated, if his blood were 
charged to their account. What then can be more revolting 



Let. IX. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 167 

to every right feeling, than to suppose that the blessed Sa- 
viour, in that awful and tender hour when he poured out his 
soul an offering for sinners, was performing for thousands that 
which he infallibly foreknew would be of no real benefit to 
them, but only sink them down under tenfold vengeance to 
the prison of despair ? If this is what Methodism terms the 
freeness of grace and the fullness of Divine mercy in the uni- 
versal atonement, truly her " tender mercies are cruel." 
These are some of the beauties of that system which is so 
arrogantly extolled as superior to all other forms of religion. 
" Consistency is a jewel/ ' which Methodism seems resolved 
shall never glitter in her diadem. 

If it were my object to write a labored treatise on doctrinal 
points, many additional arguments would be adduced to sus- 
tain the Calvinistic view. But let us look for a few moments 
at the doctrine of Atonement taught in the Scriptures ? It 
is that Christ is " the Saviour of all men, especially of them 
that believe." He is the Saviour of all — his sacrifice secured 
important benefits not only to this world, but to the universe. 
It was an illustrious monument of the Divine justice and 
hatred of sin, and the highest display of infinite grace and 
mercy. The subjects of God's universal empire looked on 
and drank in lessons of everlasting wisdom. He is the 
Saviour of all. The exalted character of the Divine victim, 
and the intensity of his sufferings, impart a value to the 
atonement sufficient for a thousand worlds. He is the Sa- 
viour of all, hut not in the same sense in which he is " spe- 
cially the Saviour of them that believe." The work of 
obedience, suffering and death, has been well and fully per- 
formed — the sacrifice of "the Lamb of G-od" possesses a 
sufficiency more than commensurate with the ruin and curse 
introduced by sin. On the ground of this sufficiency the gos- 
pel proclaims, "Ho, every one that thirsteth — Whosoever 
will, let him come — All things are now ready." The sinner 
hears this call of mercy, and despising its invitation, dies a 



168 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IX. 

suicide. The gates of mercy were open, and he will have no 
just cause of complaint, if, whilst turning his back upon the 
glories of heaven, and freely choosing the road to ruin, his will 
was not subdued by the Spirit of grace, nor he " compelled 
to come in." No principle of truth or justice will be violated 
in permitting the rebel, in the exercise of perfect freedom, to 
make such a disposition of his time, talents and active pow- 
ers, as was most agreeable to himself; nor in inflicting 
deserved punishment for perversion and abuse of distin- 
guished mercies. If others are " made willing in the day 
of Divine power" — if " God works in them both to will and 
to do of his good pleasure" — it is an act of infinite grace to 
them, but of no imaginable injury to those that perish — they 
remain precisely where they were, and would have been, if 
God had performed no act of power to make others willing to 
be reconciled and restored to his favor. If this be "par- 
tiality," show the injustice or the caprice implied in the 
charge. If God has " a right to do what he will with his 
own," there is no injustice. If he may, for wise reasons in 
his eternal mind, select from the mass of guilt and wretched- 
ness the objects of his infinite charity, there is no caprice. 
" Who art thou that repliest against God ?" 

Let us now consider some of the most plausible objections 
to the Calvinistic view of the Atonement, derived from the 
terms, " all," u every man," "the whole world," employed 
by the sacred writers in connection with the death of Christ. 

(1.) These terms are the stronghold' of the Universalist, 
and are therefore a suspicious refuge for the Arminian ! Not 
only does the Universalist satisfy himself that such phrases 
include "all men;" but all the devils, as in Eph. 1 :10; 
Col. 1 : 20. Nor is it easy to perceive how the Arminian, 
on his principle of interpretation, will answer his argument 
from these and similar passages. 

(2.) These terms will often bear no other than a limited 
sense. Exod. 9 : 6— "AU the cattle of Egypt died." Same 



Let. IX. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 169 

verse — " Of the cattle of the children of Israel (which were 
all in Egypt) died not one." Matt. 3 : 5, 6 — " Jerusalem, 
and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, went 
out to him (John) and were baptized." Did John baptize 
every man, woman and child in that district ? Matt. 10 : 22 
— " Ye shall be hated by all men for my name's sake." 
Does this include the pious, and those who never heard of 
the Apostles ? Luke 2 : 1 — " There went out a decree that 
all the world should be taxed." " And all went to be taxed." 
Can this literally mean every individual of mankind ? Rom. 
1 : 8 — " Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." 
Surely not among those who had never heard of Christianity. 

Dr. Clarke, the Methodist commentator, owing to his 
Arminian notions, is compelled, in a remarkable instance, to 
adopt the limited interpretation of the term "world." In 
expounding John 17 : 21, he says : " "We have already seen 
that the word world is used in several parts of our Lord's last 
discourse, to signify the Jewish people only." Thus, when 
our Lord says, "I pray not for the world," he means, ac- 
cording to Clarke, "I am not yet come to that part of my 
intercession I." I am not now praying for the Jews ! And 
he then refers us to verse 20th of the same chapter : " Neither 
pray I for these alone (my twelve disciples), but for them also 
which shall believe on me through their word." Here the 
Saviour begins to pray for the world, i. e. for " them which 
shall believe on me !" And again, says Clarke, " He does 
not pray for the world, the rebellious Jews, because the cup 
of their iniquity was full." Under the guidance of such a 
skillful expositor, the terms world, whole world, &c. can 
occasion no trouble to the Calvinist. 

When the term world signifies persons, it sometimes de- 
notes the Roman empire, as in Acts 11 : 28, Rom. 1:8, or it 
means the Gentiles as distinguished from the Jews, or even 
but a part of the Jewish people, as in John 12 : 19, or the 
wicked men of the world, as 1 John 4 : 4-5. Thus when 
15 



170 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IX. 

the Pharisees said of Christ — u Behold, the world is gone 
after him" — the term of course included only a small number 
of the Jews and a few Gentiles in the crowd. 

(3.) In explaining such phraseology, it should be kept in 
mind that the Jews had imbibed a strong prejudice that they 
were always to continue the peculiar and highly favored peo- 
ple of God, to the exclusion of the Gentiles. Not so, say the 
Apostles. The gospel embraces in its large provisions all 
men, the whole world, without distinction of Jew or Gentile, 
bond or free. 

(4.) These general terms often denote men of all sorts and 
ranks and conditions, high and low, rich and poor. Thus 
Paul made himself a servant to all. 1 Cor. 1 : 19. But no 
text can be found which affirms that Christ died in the law- 
room of all mankind, with a design to save them, and as 
their surety and representative. One plain, express, une- 
quivocal declaration to this effect would settle the question — 
but it is not to be had. 

(5.) Calvinists, as before stated, earnestly maintain that 
there is a very important sense in which the Saviour died for 
all — that is, sufficiently for all. So that if all had been 
saved, there would have been required " no more sacrifice for 
sin." No soul will perish because of a deficiency in the 
merits or intrinsic worth of the atonement. That we hold to 
be, in the strictest sense of the terms, infinite — absolute — all- 
sufficient. By what authority, then, does Watson affirm that 
" on the Calvinian theory the bar to the salvation of the non- 
elect lies in the want of a provided, sacrifice for sin ?" Such 
hardihood of assertion ill becomes a master in Israel. 

This view of the intrinsic sufficiency of the atonement, 
furnishes a satisfactory answer to another Arminian cavil, 
viz. that "on the part of the non-elect, unbelief is no sin," 
and that for all men to believe in Christ for salvation, would 
De for many of them to " believe a lie."* This would have 
* Objections, p. 152. 



Let. IX. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 171 

some force, if we were required to persuade men that Christ 
died with an equal intention to save them all ! "We command 
all, in the name of the Most High God, to believe that the 
work of sacrifice and propitiation is finished, and that the 
only obstacle to their salvation is in themselves. This is no 
"lie," but a great truth, and they are righteously bidden to 
believe it. They have all the faculties requisite for understand- 
ing, believing, accepting and loving this truth — all that is 
wanting is the right dispositions or affections. For this want 
they are responsible. These wrong dispositions are no better 
excuse than if a son should say to a very kind father — " I 
hate you so intensely I cannot love you !" 

But, retorts the Arminian, "perhaps Christ did not intend 
to save me. What use, then, in my endeavors, prayers, &c ?" 
Let us look closely at this plea. "We will take a parallel 
case. God made a promise to Noah for all mankind, that 
"while the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest shall 
not cease." Gen. 8 : 22. But sometimes he sends a nipping 
frost in June, which reverses this promise over a large extent 
of territory. Suppose the husbandman should say — "I do 
not know whether it is the intention of God to give me a har- 
vest next summer — therefore I will neither plow nor sow. 
God has made it my duty to cultivate the soil, and denounced 
idleness as the hateful parent of many crimes — but as he has 
not revealed his intention in regard to the next harvest, what 
use in my endeavors, rising up early, and eating the bread of 
carefulness ?" This would be a pure Arminian husbandry, 
and like sloth, it would soon bring its advocate to rags. A 
preacher of this sort of agriculture, might argue very logi- 
cally — " Know you not that if God does not intend to give 
you a harvest, you will not get it ? "Why should you labor ; 
you cannot make one blade of wheat grow ? Why do you 
take trouble about that which Omnipotence alone can per- 
form ? What folly you are guilty of ! Plow, harrow, sow, 



172 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IX. 

fence — for what ? Will not God fulfill his intention not to 
give you a crop, if such it be ?"* 

" But still it may be said, if it be not the Divine intention 
to give me a crop next summer, why should I believe his 
promise ? Gen. 8 : 22. Does he not thus require me to be- 
lieve a lie ?" This, we admit, would be sound Arminian 
logic. But so long as plain, good sense has the control, the 
farmer will say — " God's promise is my encouragement to 
industry and every other duty — his secret intention is no 
rule of conduct to any one." Thus Calvinism and common 
sense will be found to preside over all the affairs of men, ex- 
cept where a false system has introduced confusion among the 
religious activities of the soul. 

A similar train of reasoning applies to the question of hu- 
man life or death. Job says — " Man's days are determined, 
the number of his months is with thee ; thou hast appointed 
his bounds that he cannot pass." But when a man of sound 
judgment is taken sick, he does not say — "If God has deter- 
mined that I must now die, it is of no use to take either food 
or medicine I" Even the Arminian acts the Calvinist under 
such circumstances, takes to his bed, sends for the doctor, and 
swallows his nauseous compounds in the orthodox way, with- 
out waiting to settle the previous question whether " God has 
appointed his bounds," so that he cannot 'pass " over this crisis 
in his history !" This is common sense in relation to the 
soul as well as the body. 

The scriptural principles and reasonings adduced in this 
Letter, will suffice to solve every difficulty which Arminian- 
ism constructs in the way of the truth. The same God rules 
in both the kingdoms of nature and of grace, and " doeth his 
pleasure among the hosts of heaven and the inhabitants of 
the earth." The more entirely and unresistingly we can 

* See this sort of argument in almost these words, Objections, &c. p. 137, 
and in many other places. 



Let. X. FALLING FROM GRACE. 173 

pray, "Thy will be done/' the more of the spirit of true 
filial devotion we possess. This is the true, the only method 
of assuring ourselves that "our names are written in the 
book of life of the Lamb, from the foundation of the world." 
Kev. 17:8; 13:8. 



LETTER X. 

FALLING FROM GRACE. 

Rev. Sir — In my last I finished the discussion of the 
Arminian views of Atonement, viz. "a perfect redemption, 
propitiation and satisfaction for all the sins n of mankind, the 
chief, grand effect of which is to render " sin remissible and the 
sinner salvable." The satisfaction made by Christ, it was also 
ehown, might have been barren of any further fruit, since if 
one sinner disappoints the gracious designs of the almighty 
Kedeemer, all might have done likewise, and there would 
have been absolutely no remedy ! God the Father did indeed 
promise that "his work should prosper in the Mediator's 
Lands " (Isa. 53) ; but that depended on a variety of contin- 
gencies, such as "the good leave" of the sinner, and the 
poising of his will aright. It is not surprising, therefore, to 
find the early Arminians coming out boldly, and using such 
language as this — "I believe that the death of Christ might 
have had its end, though never any man had believed" — 
" that it may so come to pass, that none at all fulfilling the 
condition of the new covenant, none might be saved" and 
"that the efficacy of the death of Christ depends wholly on 
us."* 

The doctrine of the final, irrevocable fall of some of those 
who have obtained an interest in " the efficacy of Christ's 
death," and become "his sheep," is of course a natural con- 
* Owen's Display, &c. chap. 9, where the original Latin is given. 

15* 



174 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. X 

sequence from such premises. And it is equally plain, that if 
all who ever were or shall be true Christians should finally 
perish, Christ's death would equally have "had its end I" 

In the light of these extraordinary positions, as maintained 
by Arminians, we proceed to examine, 

IV. The Difficulties of Arminian Methodism, on 

THE SUBJECT OF "FALLING FROM GRACE." 

There is no dispute whether true believers may fall for a 
time into grievous sins, and thus incur God's displeasure, 
grieve his Holy Spirit, and lose the active exercise of grace 
and their spiritual comfort. Neither is there any room for 
doubt, that if left of God to their own strength, they must 
inevitably fall and perish. The only question is, whether those 
whom God " hath accepted in the Beloved," effectually called, 
" begotten to a lively hope/' purchased " with the precious 
blood of Christ as of a Lamb slain," and sanctified by his in- 
dwelling Spirit, are ever so forsaken of God that they totally 
and finally fall into sin and damnation. This we cannot be- 
lieve, for the following reasons : 

1. The concessions made by the more judicious Arminians, 
go far to prove the exceeding doubtfulness of their positions. 
Thus the General Conference, speaking by Mr. Wesley — "I 
am sensible either side of this question is attended with great 
difficulties, such as reason alone could never remove." * 
This is the tone of a wary, prudent man, and very different 
from the following : " To embrace it (the doctrine of perse- 
verance,) is to act in advance of, if not to abandon common 
sense!" Again: "Is this Christianity? Is this iniquitous 
teaching (the doctrine of perseverance,) to be palmed upon the 
world as God's truth F'-f 

*Doct. Tracts, p. 211. Arminius himself says : "I declare very frankly, 
that I have never taught that a true believer will finally and totally fall away 
and perish." Bib. Repository, for April, 1831. 

f Objections, pp. 197, 199. 






Let. X. FALLING FROM GRACE. 175 

Again : Mr. Wesley, at one period of his life (1743), said : 
" With regard to final perseverance, I incline to believe that 
there is a state attainable in this life, from which a man can- 
not finally fall, and that he has attained this who can say, 
6 old things are passed away, &c."* Observe, (1.) Mr. Wesley 
here takes high Calvinistic ground, too high for most Presby- 
terians. Substitute for Mr. W's. cannot, the phrase will not, 
because God's grace prevents — and then you have the true 
doctrine. (2.) According to Messrs. Foster & Simpson, Mr. 
Wesley was, at that time, "inclined to" " abandon common 
sense/' " the known conviction and consciousness of all Chris- 
tians," adopt " the fate and absurdity of the (Calvinistic) 
system," &c ! We infer, therefore, that he had beyond all 
doubt " fallen from grace !" The ground and evidence of 
this sad fall are found in his " strong desire to unite with 
Mr. Whitefield and to cut off, as far as possible, needless dis- 
pute, f Whether these were crimes of sufficient magnitude 
to produce such a fall, we will not venture to decide. 

So also when Watson and Wesley, as before quoted, adopt 
the doctrine of " irresistible grace," the former affirming 
that " men are sometimes suddenly and irresistibly awakened 
by the Spirit of God ;" and the latter, li that Divine grace 
does for a time work as irresistibly as lightning from heaven;" 
and when Wesley adds, " I do not deny that in some souls 
the grace of God is so far irresistible that they cannot but 
believe and be finally saved" — this is certainly the doctrine 
of final perseverance ; and that too in an extreme form which 
few Calvinists would be willing to indorse. If these extraor- 
dinary acts of mercy are performed for the elect few among 
Arminians, why are they not performed for others ? Is not 
this Arminian partial grace ? If this irresistible " light- 
ning " sort of conversion elects or chooses some, how cruel to 
leave the rest to perish without the requisite flash ? Is this 
what Arminians mean by " merciless tyranny?" 
* Work3, vol. iii. p. 289. f Ibid. 



176 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. X. 

2. The perfections of God present an insuperable difficulty 
in the way of the doctrine of " falling from grace." He is 
infinitely just, but the surety of the covenant has satisfied 
Divine justice; Christ has purchased his church with his 
blood, even every individual soul of that church; and of 
course the believer is safe with such a " friend at court." On 
the theory of the Arminian, the soul may be formed in the 
image of Christ, a new creature, and become the temple of 
the Holy Ghost. She may be interested in the * perfect re- 
demption and satisfaction " made for all her sins. She may 
be justified before the righteous Judge, and have all her 
transgressions blotted out through the tender compassions of a 
covenant-keeping God. Justice may be satisfied, the law 
honored and magnified, and the new-born spirit placed under 
the care of the great Shepherd, who ransomed her with his 
blood, whose love is immutable, as his power is infinite. But 
all in vain. To-day, the soul is embraced in the arms of an 
almighty Saviour, bears his image and is sealed with his 
blood — to-morrow, she is the victim of malicious fiends, ex- 
ulting over her agonies amid the horrors of eternal woe. 
Yesterday, all her sins were forgiven, through a "perfect 
propitiation and satisfaction " — to-day, all her sins are charged 
to her account; Christ's perfect atonement avails not; but 
the dread penalty of the violated law is poured upon her de- 
voted head. Yesterday, the soul was one of Christ's sheep, 
of whom he has said, " They shall never perish — I know them, 
and they follow me" — to-day, it is one of those to whom he 
says, iC Depart ye cursed, I never knew you." Yesterday, she 
was acquitted and accepted as of the number of the "good, 
whose steps are ordered by the Lord; who, though they fall, 
shall not be utterly cast down, for the Lord upholdeth them 
with his hand," (Ps. 37 : 23, 25) — to-day, she is found 
guilty, rejected as vile, and falls to rise no more ! Does the 
blessed Saviour mean what he says, "I know them?" But 
at the day of judgment, he will say to those at his left hand, 



Let. X. PALLING FROM GRACE. 177 

"I never knew you." How could this be true, if lie had 
known many who were once his sheep, but now declares he 
never knew them ? Thus the truth of God is implicated. 

God is unchangeable, and loves his people " with an ever- 
lasting love, therefore with loving kindness does he draw 
them." Jer. 21 : 3. How then can he hate those whom he 
loves with an " everlasting love Y 9 

God is infinitely wise and powerful. But is it consistent 
with this truth to suppose that he new-creates by his Spirit 
to-day, the soul which he has " purposed from eternity," as 
Watson says, to cast into hell to-morrow? Paul did not 
think so — for he was " confident of this very thing, that he 
which hath begun a good work in you, will perform it until 
the day of Jesus Christ." Phil. 1:6. 

God is infinitely faithful to his Son, and to all his promi- 
ses. Therefore his " elect * * * are kept by his power 
through faith unto salvation." 1 Pet. 1 : 2—5. The promise 
to the Redeemer was that " a seed should be given him," 
that those whom the Father had promised him should come 
unto him, be taught of God, receive the Spirit and be raised 
up at the last day. Those blessings involve the certain salva- 
tion of all on whom they are bestowed. He is " the good 
Shepherd — lays down his life for the sheep — loves the church 
and gave himself for it." Arniinians seem to adopt the New 
School notions — that the death of the Saviour merely makes 
pardon possible, but was not designed to save, not to 
purify, not to bring us near to God. Yery different is the 
promise of Jehovah — " I will put my fear in their hearts, 
that they shall not depart, from me." Jer. 31 : 40. " The 
righteous shall hold on his way." Job 17 : 9. "If any 
man eat of this bread, he shall live forever." John 6 : 5. 
" Whom he justified, them he also glorified." Rom. 8 : 30. 
Thus the Scriptures represent true believers as firmly estab- 
lished, and on an everlasting foundation; immovable like 
Mount Zion, as a rock, or a house built on a rock ; they are 



178 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. X. 

God' s jewels, Lis peculiar treasure which shall not he lost; 
and as a spring whose waters fail not, as trees whose leaf 
shall not wither. Thus too their graces, in virtue of their 
union with Christ as " the members of his body, of his flesh, 
and of his bones/' are an " incorruptible seed," " the seed of 
God which abidcih in them." 1 John 3:9. So that their 
faith overcomes the world, fails not, and their hope never 
makes ashamed. 

3. To suppose redeemed and regenerated souls to perish, is 
inconsistent with the honor of all the Persons of the Trinity. 
Of the Father, who promised them to the Son as the reward 
of his mediatorial work — of the Son, who "bought them 
with a price, even his own precious blood" — of the Spirit, 
whose temples they are, who is a perpetual fountain within 
them, " springing up unto everlasting life," — and who is the 
earnest of their inheritance, the infallible seal of God, con- 
firming them to everduring happiness. 

4. The intercession of Christ demonstrates the falsity of this 
Arminian notion. "He is able to save to the uttermost." 
Why? "Because he ever liveth to make intercession for 
those that come unto God by him." Heb. 7 : 25. " Him the 
Father heareth always." "I pray for them, not for the 
world," — " I pray for them also which shall believe on me 
through their word." And what was the object of his pray- 
ers ? To Peter he said — " I have prayed for thee that thy 
faith fail not" And again — "Father, I will that they 
also whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, 
that they may behold my glory." "Holy Father, keep 
through thine own name, those whom thou hast given me." 
John 17 : 9, 11, 24. The persons for whom Christ intercedes, 
are " all that shall believe on him." The objects he prays 
for, are their being kept in the exercise of unfailing faith, and 
their final glorification with him. Does he ever ask and not 
receive ? Here is his own reply — " I know that thou hearest 
me always." On the Arminian scheme all these precious 



Let. X. FALLING FROM GRACE. 179 

assurances are falsified in various instances, and the very truth 
of him who is the Truth, is made of none effect ! 

5. The certainty of final salvation to all who are " new- 
created in Christ Jesus," and " raised from the dead, accord- 
ing to the mighty power whereby God raised up Jesus," — is 
further evident from the peculiar phraseology employed. So 
firmly established is the promise, that it is represented as 
already fulfilled — they "have everlasting life." "He that 
heareth my word and believe th on him that sent me, hath 
everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation." 
John 5 : 34. " They are preserved forever — they cannot sin," 
i. e. cannot fall into permanent, habitual sin ; cannot become 
sin-doers, as the original signifies. So " it is God that justi- 
fied" pardons, accepts, and saves them — " who is he that 
condemneth ?" "And there is joy in the presence of the 
angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." Why this 
joy? Because "he which converteth the sinner from the 
error of his ways, shall save a soul from death." Jas. 5 : 20. 
Was this joy ever premature ? 

6. The same conclusions follow from the reasons which 
inspired men assign, when accounting for the apostasy of cer- 
tain persons. Thus " the beloved disciple :" he is warning 
the church against " the love of the world," which is the 
very spirit of antichrist. Some had already fallen : " They 
went out from us." Why so ? Because " they were not 
of us." " For if they had been of us, they would no doubt 
have continued with us. But they went out from us, that 
they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." 
1 John 2 : 19. Observe, he does not say, " they were once 
Christians," but " they were not of us" i. e, they never were 
Christians, otherwise they would have continued with us. 

7. The blessed Saviour, " the way, the truth and the life," 
clearly asserts the impossibility of deceiving finally his own 
people. Thus : " False Christs and false prophets shall arise, 
and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were pos- 



180 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. X. 

sible, even the elect/' Mark 13 : 22. The Arminian, how- 
ever, feels no such difficulty or hesitation in admitting the 
possibility of deceiving the elect. " We have proved," he 
says, " that the number of the elect may be diminished." * 
So also, when the covenant-keeping God promises to David, 
as an illustrious type of Christ : " My covenant will I not 
break, nor alter the thing that has gone out of my mouth. 
Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto 
David." Psalm 89 : 34, 35. The General Conference reply: 
"God did break the covenant of his servant." " He did 
alter the thing that had gone out of his lips." u God did 
also fail David." We will not " return railing for railing;" 
but there is' strong temptation to ask : "Is this Christianity? 
Is this iniquitous teaching (of Arminians) to be palmed upon 
the world as God's truth ?" f 

We have thus endeavored to condense into brief space a 
number of the leading arguments which overthrow the Armin- 
ian doctrine of "falling from grace." It may be proper now 
to notice objections to the reasoning employed. To evade 
the force of such texts as those cited requires some polemical 
skill. As, for example, when Paul inquires, "Who shall 
separate us from the love of Christ V and adds his persuasion 
that neither death nor life, &c. should be able to separate us 
from his love. The Arminian adds, " Yery true, if Chris- 
tians hold fast their integrity." In other words, if they per- 
severe, they will persevere ! " My sheep shall never perish, 
neither shall any pluck them out of my hand;" i. e. replies 
the Arminian, if they remain Christ's sheep. In other 
words, the promise is, " If they remain his sheep, they shall 
remain his sheep !" " I will put my fear in their hearts, that 
they shall not depart from me;" that is, if they do not depart 
from God, they shall not depart! "The righteous shall hold 
on his way;" i. e. if he does hold on his way! "The steps 
of a good man are ordered by the Lord : though he fall, he 
* Watson's lust. vol. ii. p. 340. f Objections, &o. p. 197. 



Let. X. FALLING FROM GRACE. 181 

shall not he utterly cast down, for the Lord upholdeth hiin 
with his hand/' That is, if he continues to be a good man, 
he shall not be utterly cast down. In other words, if he do 
not fall, or falling, riseth up again, he shall not remain cast 
down ! And if he hold himself up, the Lord will uphold him 
with his hand ! According to Methodist interpretation, these 
consolatory passages, which have filled the Christian's bosom 
a thousand times with unutterable joy, are nothing more than 
identical propositions. " If such an event take place, it will 
take place J" 

In like manner (John 14 : 19), "Whosoever drinketh of 
the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst, * * * 
but it shall be in him a well of water springing up into ever- 
lasting life." " He shall never thirst." It is a pitiful 
evasion to say that he shall not thirst while he is drinking, 
but that if he gives over using this water, he shall thirst 
again ; for this was true of the water of Jacob's well, as well 
as of the living water with which it is placed in contrast. 
It is obviously taught that " he shall never thirst," because 
the fountain springs up within him, i. e. the Spirit shall con- 
tinue to inhabit those to whom he has been given, till the 
work of glorification crowns the whole.* In confirmation of 
this reasoning, Paul in 2 Cor. 1 : 21, 22/says, "He which 
stablisheth us with you in Christ and hath anointed us, is 
God ; who hath also sealed us and given us the earnest of the 
Spirit in our hearts." "He hath sealed us." A seal was 
employed to mark possession, to secure treasures or to au- 
thenticate a title to property. Thus the Holy Spirit marks 
believers as the peculiar people of God, guards them as his 
precious jewels, and establishes and ratifies their title to ever- 
lasting glory. These are the very blessings for which the 
Saviour prays : " Holy Father, keep through thine own name 
those that thou hast given me, that they may be one as we 
are," " Because I live, ye shall live also." The very living 

* Turretine, Dc Perseverentia. Dick's Lectures. 

16 



182 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMIXIANISM. Let. X. 

faith which Peter needed to sustain him under the bufferings 
of Satan — the very guardianship which God alone can exer- 
cise over the soul, are the objects for which he prays. To 
interpret all this as the Arminian does : " They will be kept, 
if they ( watch and pray/ " i. e. keep themselves ; u they will 
finally be with Christ, if they do not stop in the way," is 
puerile in the extreme. For the gracious affections which 
prompt the soul to persevere in watching and praying, and in 
every good work, are the very gifts which Christ asks of his 
Father, the very mercies which the Father, in answer to his 
intercession, always bestows, and "the very living water 
which springs up in the soul into everlasting life." It is not 
denied that spiritual life, like that of the body, may exist in 
almost an infinite variety of degrees, just as a wasting disease 
often gradually saps the foundations of health, until scarce a 
shadow of former strength remains. But still there is life; 
the principle of life lingering so as to render it often- 
times very difficult to decide where the precise point of disso- 
lution occurs. Something of this sort, except the final issue, 
pertains to the health of the soul. So there is a natural sleep, 
which is " the image of death," and there is a collapse of the 
physical powers, which still more resembles death. But in 
these cases the vital principle, though temporarily inactive, is 
not extinct. Something of the same nature is doubtless felt in 
the experience of many who are true Christians ; but the rea- 
sons of it belong not to this discussion. To the mind of the 
Calvinist, however, few truths revealed in the Scriptures ap- 
pear more demonstrably evident, than the doctrine of the final 
perseverance of all who are " bought with the blood" of 
Christ. The opposite, or Arminian doctrine, strikes us as 
most dishonorable to the knowledge and wisdom of God, and 
to the perfection and efficacy of the u finished work" of atone- 
ment. Nor is it more adapted to cherish false views of the 
nature and attributes of the Supreme Ruler, than to confuse 
the spiritual perceptions and dry up the consolations of true 



Let. X. FALLING FROM GRACE. 183 

believers. " If I could believe these things," says the ven- 
erable Dr. Miller, " I must consider the character of God as 
dishonored; his counsels as degraded to a chaos of wishes 
and endeavors; his promises as the fallible and uncertain 
declarations of circumscribed knowledge and endless doubt; 
the best hopes of the Christian as liable every hour to be 
blasted ; and the whole plan of salvation as nothing better 
than a gloomy system of possibilities and peradventures ; a 
system, on the whole, nearly if not quite as likely to land the 
believer in the abyss of the damned as in the paradise of 
God." 

Let us next examine some of the more common objections 
to the Perseverance of Saints. 

1. It is objected that it denies man's free agency, and leads 
to the doctrine of Fate. To prove this our Confession is 
quoted: "They whom God hath accepted in the Beloved and 
sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall 
away." " True believers cannot fall totally or finally from 
grace." * This is said to mean that believers " have no suf- 
ficient power" to fall from grace,")* but are mere machines, 
under "unavoidable necessity and controlled by fate," and 
of course " no longer free." But in employing such terms 
to express only a strong degree of certainty, Calvinists closely 
copy the Holy Scriptures. Thus Joseph's brethren "could 
not speak peaceably to him." "Those having eyes full of 
adultery, cannot cease from sin." " The carnal mind is 
not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be — the 
natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit." " They 
that are in the flesh cannot please God." " No man CAN 
come to me, except the Father draw him." Interpret these 
and similar passages according to Bishop Simpson and Mr. 
Foster, and these various classes of sinners are under " un- 
avoidable necessity" to sin, and, of course, are no longer 
blamable ! If Arminians would read their Bibles more and 
* Dr. Dick, vol. ii. p. 284. f Objections, p. 196. 



184 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. X. 

their standard writers less, they would not so often be caught 
in such inextricable blunders. 

2. It is objected, that if "Adam and the holy angels fell 
from purity, why not regenerated persons V "We answer, the 
cases are altogether different. The angels and Adam had no 
promise of a faithful Grod, that " they should not depart from 
him/' no covenant assurance that they should " never perish." 
Besides, the standing of believers steadfastly in the faith and 
practice of the truth, is not in their own strength, but by 
grace and sufficiency purchased by atoning blood. Their per- 
severance is therefore firm and assured, even as the perfect 
" righteousness " of their Substitute and Surety, and infallibly 
certain as Christ's prayers to be answered. " Because I live, 
ye shall live also." The continued obedience of Adam had 
no such firm foundation as this. Thus it is, that "a just 
man falleth seven times and riseth up again/' * " for the 
Lord upholdeth him with his hand." Neither will this take 
place without the believer's own exertions, in the prayerful 
and diligent use of the appropriate means of grace. No 
one holds that " the man may indulge to the utmost excess 
and yet be safe," any more than the farmer will receive a 
crop if he do not labor for it, or life will be continued without 
food. " Final perseverance " is a perseverance in " holiness, 
and the end everlasting life." Neither is it a lawful infer- 
ence from this doctrine, that a believer having fallen into 
sin, if he die impenitent, will Tbe saved; but that no true 
saint will be suffered thus to die. In the language of "Wesley, 
" he is immortal till his work is done ;" and one important 
part of that work is his own preparation for a death of peace 
and a future life. 

3. It is objected that the final fall and perdition of "the 
righteous " is assumed in Ezek. 18 : 24 — " When the right- 
eous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth 
iniquity, * * * in his sin that he hath sinned, he shall 

* Pror. 24 : 16. 






Let. X. FALLING FROM GRACE. 185 

die." Admitting, for the present, that this refers to that 
spiritual nature secured in regeneration (which is not certain*), 
it is a sufficient reply that there are many similar supposed 
cases in the Bible, where it is positively certain the things 
supposed will never take place. Thus Levit. 18 : 5 — " Ye 
shall keep my statutes and my judgments, which if a man 
do, he shall live in them." Paul refers to this text (Rom. 
10 : 5 ; Gal. 3 : 12), and interprets it to mean that if a man 
should obey perfectly the Divine law, he would be justified 
by works. But does it follow that any ordinary man ever did 
or ever will perfectly obey the whole law ? He answers : 
" By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." So 
also, " though we or an angel from heaven should preach any 
other gospel, * * * let him be accursed ;" may we thence 
infer that Paul or a holy angel ever will " preach another 
gospel?" Suppose a minister should say, If an Ethiopian 
shall change his skin, or a camel go through the eye of a 
needle, then will certain classes of the ungodly be purified 
and saved ; would any person understand him to mean, that 
the negro ever does or will wash himself white, or a camel 
pass through the eye of a needle ? These hypothetical cases 
furnish a ready clew to solve many similar difficulties. If 
believers do not " forgive their enemies," neither will G-od 
forgive them ; but this by no means proves that a true Chris- 
tian ever dies cherishing an unforgiving temper. Of the 
pardoned, Glod says, " Their sins and iniquities will I remem- 
ber no more." How can this be, if such a soul will have all 
his sins called into judgment, and he doomed to eternal woe 
on their account ? 

4. Heb. 6:4-6 speaks of those "who were once enlight- 
ened, tasted of the heavenly gift, were made partakers of the 

* See Deut. 25 : 1 — " If there be a controversy between men, and they 
come into judgment, * * * then the judges shall justify the righteous and 
condemn the wicked." The righteous in this text means a person with a 
righteous cause, which a vsry wicked man often has before courts of justice. 
See also parallel passages in 1 Kings 2:32; 2 Kings 10 : 9. 

16* 



186 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. X. 

Holy Ghost, &c. if they shall fall away, it is impossible to 
renew them again to repentance." This text is supposed to 
contain a strong argument against our doctrine. 

But besides that the case is hypothetical, not asserted as a 
real occurrence — there is this difficulty in the way of the 
Arminian interpretation : the class of persons here described 
cannot be restored to repentance.* But those who "fall from 
grace" in Arminian churches, may fall and rise every day, 
and even every hour ! Besides, Paul tells us that he did not 
apply these admonitory words to those Hebrews to whom he 
wrote, for he was " persuaded better tilings of them, even 
things which accompany salvation." Yer. 9. Thus he 
clearly indicates his belief of the doctrine of their persever- 
ance unto the end, that they might be saved. 

5. A fifth objection is founded on Rev. 22 : 19 — " If any 
man shall take away from the words of the book of this life, 
G-od shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out 
of the holy city." To explain this, we should remember 
that persons are often spoken of in the Bible, according to 
their apparent or visible character, rather than their real 
standing before G-od. So Christ addresses the twelve disci- 
ples — " I say unto you, my friends" — but Judas was not his 
friend, but a devil. And when he promises them "twelve 
thrones" in heaven, he certainly did not include Judas, " who 
went to his own place." So also when (Matt. 13 : 12) he 
says — " Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, * * * 
but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even 
that which he hath" — in the parallel passage, Luke 8:18, it 
reads, " even that which he seemeth to have." So in taking 

* Dr. Clarke admits that there is " a good sense in which all these things 
may he applied to the Jews at large, who were favored by our Lord's min- 
istry and miracles." Of course the reference will then be "to their state, 
which had received much moral cultivation from Moses, the prophets, Christ 
and his Apostles, and now bore only pride, unbelief, and hardness of heart," 
&c. Com. Heb. 6:8. If this be true, the passage does not refer to the 
apostasy of true believers. 



Let. X. FALLING FROM GRACE. 187 

away " the pari" of the person spoken of, God shall make it 
manifest that he had "no part or lot in these things" — he 
shall take from him even that which lie seemed to have. 

6. Another Arminian objection is founded on the very 
numerous warnings and cautions given to Christians by the 
inspired writers, " to take heed lest they fall," " be cast 
away," &c. But these are to be viewed as the Divinely ap- 
pointed means of securing their perseverance. A parallel 
case is that of Paul's shipwreck. Acts 27. The angel of 
God appeared to him and assured him that not a soul should 
perish of all that were in the ship. This of course insured 
that result — but it did not make the exertions of the seamen 
needless. On the contrary when they were about to leave the 
vessel, Paul said to the centurion, " Except these abide in the 
ship, ye cannot be saved." Thus the event, though certain, 
was to be brought about by the proper instrumentality, but 
not without it. Hezekiah's life, too, was, by special promise 
of God, prolonged fifteen years — but he was directed to em- 
ploy the appropriate means for his recovery, nor could he live 
without food. Just so is it with the certain perseverance of 
the true believer. These admonitions and other spiritual 
aids are the bread and water which support and prolong the 
health and vigor of his soul, and secure its final salvation. 

7. Again we are referred to the grievous falls of some of 
the most distinguished of God's people, Noah, David, Solo- 
mon and others. We admit that one clear, unequivocal ex- 
ample of a true friend of God, a soul reconciled by faith in 
Christ, having totally and finally apostatized and perished, 
would settle the question. But there is no such case on 
record. Christ tells us that " many will prophesy and cast 
out devils in his name" — but he will say to them, " I never 
knew you." Persons may appear to make great attainments 
in religion ; while it is all a form of godliness without the 
power — they have no oil of true grace in their lamps. And 
as regards the deplorable lapses of eminent Christians, if 



188 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. X. 

they fell, they rose again, being "kept by the power of God, 
through faith unto salvation." 

It is not questioned that the doctrine of final perseverance 
may be perverted and abused by hypocrites and wicked men. 
But so may every other doctrine of the- Bible. That there is 
no such tendency in the true statement of our doctrine, what- 
ever may be the result of the misrepresentations of its ene- 
mies, is obvious. If in any case it seems to encourage licen- 
tious or careless living, we may feel assured it is owing to a 
perversion of the truth, which implies in its very essence, a 
perseverance in holiness as of the very nature of persever- 
ance unto salvation. No man has any evidence of conversion, 
while he chooses to live in the practice of iniquity. The 
perseverance of such a person is unto everlasting perdition. 
But in regard to him whose heart God in the exercise of in- 
finite, unmerited goodness, has renewed, even when he was 
dead in sin, what possible motive could he have to forsake 
such a soul ? Is it on account of his sins ? The Apostle 
answers — " If when we were enemies, we were reconciled to 
God, by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, 
we shall be saved by his life/' In the language of another, 
"God will extinguish the sun and the moon, and all the 
stars ; he will burn up the world — but he will first { gather 
together his elect from the four corners of heaven/ "* 

But while the doctrine of " saints' perseverance" may be 
perverted and abused to licentiousness, the doctrine of "falling 
from grace" is the natural and legitimate source of much of 
that instability and uncertainty which mark the conversions 
of Methodism. Those who have long and carefully studied 
this subject, with the largest facilities for a correct estimate, 
assure us that about " nine-tenths of the whole are found to 
be spurious, i. e. ' fall from grace/ after a longer or shorter 

* Tract on Perseverance, issued by the Congregational Board of Publica- 
tion. In answering these objections, the author is indebted for a number of 
suggestions to this source. 



Let. X. FALLING FROM GRACE. 189 

trial I" They mention cases where as many as thirty persons 
were received into class, of whom, at the end of the year, 
only two remained — of forty said to be converted, every one 
of whom became backsliders — and of one hundred and five 
counted as converts, all hut two of whom fell away. Said 
one of this class of converts, " I have been a member of the 
church, off and on, seventeen years." A class-leader of this 
sort was exhorting his mother " to be born again and be- 
come a dear, good Methodist." She replied, "You have been 
born again now ten times, and I am afraid if you should 
be converted ten times more, you will never get to heaven."* 
The great radical transformation of the soul described by its 
Author as " a new creation," a " spiritual resurrection," " a 
new life," is degraded to a process not dissimilar to the 
putting on and off of a coat ! Falling and rising up again is 
a very simple and easy process. " Sufficient grace" is at hand, 
and all that is required is " the mighty exertion" of the lapsed 
soul — as Mr. Foster has it. This process may indeed go so 
far that the soul will lose all grace by frequent abuse — but 
no one imagines that this extremity can ordinarily arrive 
short of some half dozen, perhaps more, of these ups and 
downs in the religious life ! The impression which such facts 
make upon hundreds of worldly men, as well as upon the 
supposed converts, is that vital religion is all a sham. "Min- 
isters have told us," say these converts, " that we had expe- 
rienced religion ; but we have tried it and found it a cheat." 
And just as surely as principles will to a greater or less ex- 
tent, mould and influence a man's conduct, so surely does 
this doctrinal error of Arminianism tend strongly and neces- 
sarily to such results. It is not the abuse of a good thing, 
but the natural and uniform working of a powerful cause pro- 
ducing these disastrous effects, just as disease produces death. 
If it were possible to obtain minute statistical information 
of the state of things in the most prosperous Methodist 
* See Cooke's Centuries. 



190 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. X. 

churches, the statements would doubtless be fully confirmed. 
Some years ago, the Rev. Gr. Coles published in the Christian 
Advocate and Journal the following exhibit of the Congre- 
gation of Poughkeepsie, N. Y. for two years previous. He 
says the number of members in his church at first was about 
four hundred : 

Moved away without certificate, and otherwise lost from the classes, 48 
Probationers dropped, -------- 29 

Members expelled, ---,-----10 

Members withdrawn, -------- 5 

Total, -----92 

(1.) Of these ninety-two, be it observed, forty-eight either 
removed without certificate (and thus are out of the churchy 
being excluded from other circuits by the Discipline), or are 
embraced in the mysterious designation, "lost from the 
classes!" The remaining forty-four were "dropped" as un- 
promising, " expelled" as unsavory, or withdrew in disgust. 
So that, as Mr. Coles himself testifies, notwithstanding the 
church had received an accession of one hundred and seventy- 
seven persons from other circuits and on probation, and there 
had been only eighteen deaths, yet the whole number was 
less by just seventeen, than two years previously, at the 
commencement of his labors ! What a picture is this ! One 
hundred (nearly) separated from the institutions of religion, 
bearing the mark of disgrace ! Nearly one-fourth of the 
whole Methodist host (supposing the prosperity of the church 
to be equally great elsewhere) dismissed under the stigma of 
ecclesiastical dishonor every two years ! 

(2.) By the returns in 1836, they reported over six hun- 
dred and fifty thousand members, which, by the foregoing 
calculation, would give upward of one hundred and sixty 
thousand excommunicants every two years, or more than 
eighty thousand annually! Is there not reason to fear that 
the light which so shines is darkness ? 

(3.) So also a writer in the Southern Christian Advocate 
for October, 1852, says: 



Let. X. FALLING FROM GRACE. 191 

"Being allowed to peep into the archives of an old and 
flourishing church, I have taken, as a basis for the following 
table, four revivals;" and the writer adds, "I was in every 
revival myself." He then states : " Of those who joined our 
church, 204 in number, the following table will show their 
ultimate destiny : 

Males. Females. Total. 

Methodists, 24 64 88 

Backsliders, ------ 45 13 58 

Presbyterians, ----- 2 14 16 

Baptists, -------4 4 8 

Episcopalians, - 1 1 

Moved away, 3 30 33 

204 

The writer then remarks : " Here we have of 171 original 
members, only 88 remaining and living and dying with us, 
58 gone back to the world, and 25 joined other communions 
Of the 33 who moved away, and were lost sight of, I fear not 
a moiety ever joined any church, much less remained in ours. 
So from this showing, not half of the fruits of our revivals are 
saved to the church." 

" The influence of the doctrine of certain perseverance, we 
are told, is similar to that of Universalism." But it is a 
well known fact that in whatever district of country Method- 
ist Episcopacy has been left to work out her system apart 
from the restraints, supports, and other modifying influences 
of other denominations, especially of Calvinistic bodies, there 
infidelity prevails to a fearful extent, especially among the 
better educated and more influential classes j and Arminian- 
ism produces its legitimate fruits, viz. spiritual lethargy and 
other premonitory symptoms of death. So also in certain 
sections where Unitarianism has prevailed, associated as it 
generally is with Universalism — very rarely have any lost 
their Calvinism without using Arminianism as a stepping- 
stone to those worse errors. Ordinarily they have made Ar- 
minianism the half way house in attaining the lower deep of 



192 DIFFICULTIES OF AEMINIANISM. Let. XI. 

Socinianism and Universalism. It is the testimony of Rev. 
Parsons Cooke, pastor of Lynn Congregational church, Mass. 
that " the Methodist ministry promotes Universalism much 
faster than a Universalist ministry can," and that " few con- 
verts are gained by Universalists, except of those who have 
gone through a spurious Methodist conversion." Hundreds 
in many parts of our country will testify that " this witness 
is true." As to skepticism or infidelity, the Methodist 
Quarterly Review (for 1848, p. 495) concedes that " Calvin- 
ism has no ' direct tendency to such a result/ though it has 
been charged by Arminian champions with Atheism as a 
necessary consequence." This is the language of a decided 
Arminian, but of a man of enlightened views — and of course 
he opposite of Foster on Calvinism. 



LETTER XI. 

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.— IMPUTED KIGHTEOUSNESS. 

Rev. Sir — Very intimately associated with the doctrine of 
Atonement, is that of Justification by the righteousness of 
Christ — the doctrine, as Luther well called it, of " a rising 
or falling church." 

Y. The Difficulties of Arminian Methodism on 

THE SUBJECT OF JUSTIFICATION AND IMPUTED RIGHT- 
EOUSNESS. 

If a man be, as even Arminians maintain, a hopelessly 
fallen, depraved and ruined creature, "how can he be just 
with Grod ?" The answer which all enlightened Christians 
give, is, "by the righteousness, the active and passive 
obedience of Christ." His "passive obedience," or his 
sufferings, were necessary to satisfy the penal demands of the 
law, and release the believer from its sentence of condemna- 



Let. XL IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. 193 

tion: his "active obedience" was to meet the requisitions of 
the same perfect law, viz. "do this and live." To he re- 
leased from a righteous sentence pronounced by a law which 
we have broken, is one thing — to be accepted in the Beloved, 
and treated at the final judgment as having fulfilled all 
required obedience, is obviously another. Christ owed no 
life-long obedience to his own law for himself, but he ren- 
dered it as really as his sufferings and death, in the character 
of the Surety and Substitute of his people. Thus says Paul, 
" By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous/' 
i. e. justified, pardoned and accepted before God. 

To illustrate the necessity of this two-fold obedience, look 
at the case of Adam. Arminians concede that he was under 
a covenant of works, the terms of which were, " Do this and 
live." Here was a righteousness required. When Adam 
broke the covenant, this righteousness was of course unful- 
filled. Suppose the penalty of his transgression be remitted, 
still the demands of the law for active righteousness in order 
to life, remain unsatisfied; man must obey, otherwise he 
cannot gain the reward of his obedience, viz. life. His sin 
may be conceived to be pardoned, but still, though he 
escapes the penalty, he does not possess any title to the reward 
of the covenant, viz. life. Thus when Christ, as our Substi- 
stute, undertook our case, it was indispensably necessary that 
he should act in our room and stead, in both these capacities. 
So he "magnified the law and made it honorable." This 
" perfect righteousness " is imputed, or reckoned to the ac- 
count of every true believer, and this is all the meritorious 
obedience he ever has or ever can have. 

With this statement agrees Goodwin, quoted and approved 
by Watson : " If we take the phrase of imputing Christ's 
righteousness, including his obedience as well passive as 
active, in the return of it, i. e. in the privileges, blessings 
and benefits purchased by it ; so a believer may be said to 
be justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed, %, e. God 
17 



194 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Lut. XI. 

justifies a believer for the sake of Christ's righteousness, not 
for any righteousness of his own."* In other words, his 
perfect obedience unto death not only pays the penalty of the 
violated law, but performs the meritorious conditions of the 
broken covenant, "Do, and live." Thus man is not only 
pardoned, but accepted and admitted to favor and friendship, 
which is a very different thing from mere pardon. The felon 
may be pardoned by the act of the Executive, but restoration 
to the favor, the good standing and social privileges of the 
community, must be the reward of protracted good behavior, 
or obedience to the laws of the land. Of the same sort were 
the two-fold necessities of man's fallen state. And such too 
was the two-fold character of " the righteousness of Christ " 
rendered in the room of the guilty, and accounted to them in 
its benefits and blessings. 

In agreement with this scriptural view of Justification, hear 
Mr. "Wesley : " As the active and passive righteousness of 
Christ were never in fact separated, so we never need separate 
them at all." He adds : " It is with regard to both these, 
conjointly, that Jesus is called the l Lord our righteousness/ " 
Again: "In what sense is this righteousness imputed to 
believers ? In this — all believers are forgiven and accepted, 
not for the sake of any thing in them, or of any thing that 
ever was, that is, or ever can be done by them, but wholly for 
the sake of what Christ has done and suffered for them."f 
Thus, in the words of our Catechism, " Justification is an act 
of God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sin, and 
accepteth us as righteous in his sight ; only for the righteous- 
ness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone." 

The great difficulty is, to reconcile these very correct and 
explicit statements of the grand doctrine of " imputed right- 
eousness," with other statements of a very different sort from 
Arminian sources. Thus Watson : "It is established by the 

* Institutes, vol. ii. p. 225. 

f Sermon on " The Lord our Righteousness." 






Let. XT. IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. 195 

New Testament, that justification, pardon and remission of 
sins, the non-imputation of sin and the imputation of right- 
eousness, are phrases of the same import."* But this not only 
flatly contradicts the statements before quoted, but is the 
same as to say, that to pardon the convicted thief and release 
him from prison, is the same as to accept him to all the priv- 
ileges of honest men, and receive him with all respect in 
good society ! These blessings of pardon and acceptance are 
always, in the case of the Christian, found conjointly, as 
Wesley says, but it is obviously proper to consider them in . 
this distinct manner, just as we contemplate the attributes of 
God separately, in order to aid our feeble comprehension. 

Similar inconsistency appears in Mr. Wesley's views of this 
great fundamental doctrine. No Calvinist, for example, wishes 
for more express and clear statements than these : " Christ 
is termed < The Lord our Righteousness/ and the plain, 
indisputable meaning is, He shall be what he is called, the 
sole purchaser , the sole meritorious cause, both of our justifi- 
cation and sanctification." " Christ is the end of the law, 
* * * the law of works, * * * for righteousness to every 
one that believeth in him, * * * to the end that, though 
he hath not kept and cannot keep that law, he may be both 
accounted and made righteous." Still Mr. W. in the same 
tract, says: "'The righteousness of Christ' is an expression 
I do not find in the Bible j" but he adds, " when Paul says 
(Rom. 5 : 18), " By the righteousness of one (in the follow- 
ing verse, 'the obedience of one, his obedience unto death/ 
his dying for us), does not Paul mean ' the righteousness of 
Christ V " Mr. Wesley answers, " undoubtedly he does !" 
Still, being altogether more cautious than the inspired Apostle, 
he says : " We are all agreed as to the meaning, but not as to 
the expression, "the imputing the righteousness of Christ!"-)" 
But can any Arminian tell how this phrase differs from his 
own Article IX. — u We are accounted righteous- before God, 
* Institutes, vol. ii. p. 212. f Doct. Tracts, p. 208. 



196 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XI. 

only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ?" 
Now, how are we to obtain that merit or righteousness except 
by its being imputed or reckoned to us ? No one can tell. 

But Mr. Wesley and his Arminian brethren say they are 
afraid of the phrase, " imputing the righteousness of Christ," 
because it tends naturally to make Christ the minister of sin." 
This, if it had any rational foundation in truth, would be a 
most formidable objection. How do they reach such a con- 
clusion ? " For," they say, " if the very personal obedience (or 
righteousness) of Christ (as those expressions directly lead 
me to think), be mine the moment I believe, * * * can my 
obeying God add any value to the perfect obedience of Christ ? 
On this scheme," they add, " are not the holy and the unholy 
on the very same footing V But as they themselves admit 
this to be only a dreadful abuse of the Antinomians, "to 
justify the grossest abominations/'* such reasoning will not 
weigh much with any well instructed Christian, who has 
been taught to regard this as one of the sweetest forms in 
which the Spirit of God hath revealed the "righteousness of 
one," that is Christ, "the Lord our righteousness." 

And why do Arminians object to the phrase, "imputed 
righteousness V* They say, it is because their " obeying God 
can add no value to Christ's perfect personal righteousness !" 
Did such a conception ever enter the mind of any true Chris- 
tian, viz. that he ought to wish or desire a kind of justification 
to which he could add value by his own obedience ! Do 
Arminians mean to say that in regard to an increase of the 
value of the perfect obedience of Christ, the " holy and 
unholy are not on the very same footing ?" Will Bishop 
Simpson, and all the other bishops, jointly or severally, in- 
form the Christian world on this topic ! Let them tell us 
how much value the obedience of any holy man can add to 
the perfect obedience of Christ." And whether an unholy 
man has any less power to add to its value ? 
* Doct. Tracts, p. 209. 



Let. XI. IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. 197 

But whilst no Calvinist could ever have conceived the idea 
of his own works, or the works of any holy or unholy man, 
" adding to the value of Christ's obedience/' still " works of 
righteousness which we have done/' or may do, have a very 
important and significant relation to the scheme of redemp- 
tion. When Mr. "Wesley quotes our Lord : " Labor * * 
for the meat that endureth to everlasting life," Mr. Fletcher, 
in his first " Check to Antinomianism," says: " He strikes 
at a fatal mistake * * * of many honest Calvinists, and 
not a few Arminians who are Calvinists in practice." This 
" fatal mistake" he describes thus : " When they see that 
man is by nature dead in trespasses and sins, they lie easy 
in the mire of iniquity, idly waiting till by an irresistible act 
of omnipotence, G-od pulls them out without any striving on 
their part." 

So far as Mr. Fletcher speaks of Arminians in this state- 
ment, we may admit him to be competent testimony; but all 
" honest Calvinists" will feel that he is " bearing false witness 
against his neighbors." They firmly believe and constantly 
teach, that "good works done in obedience to G-od's com- 
mandments are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively 
faith; that their ability to perform such works is not at all 
of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ, * * * 
who works in them to will and to do of his good pleasure. 
Yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were 
not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion 
of the Spirit ; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the 
grace of God that is in them." * These things honest Cal- 
vinists do, not to add value to the perfect obedience of their 
Saviour. This they would regard as a species of blasphemy. 
But believing when they have done all, that they are " un- 
profitable servants," they acknowledge their best services 
" have no merit, but must be accepted only through Christ." 

And strange as it may seem, Mr. Fletcher quotes Wesley 
* Confession of Faith, chap. 16. 

17* 



198 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XT. 

in terms of the very same import, as follows : "I always did 
clearly assert the total fall of man and his utter inability to 
do any good of himself; the absolute necessity of the grace 
and Spirit of G-od, to raise even a good thought or desire in 
our hearts; the Lord rewarding no works and accepting of 
none, but so far as they proceed from his preventing, con- 
vincing and converting grace through the Beloved : the blood 
and righteousness of Christ being the sole meritorious cause 
of our salvation." * There is nothing here that looks like 
adding to the value of the obedience (or righteousness) of 
Christ. 

Many of the gross misstatements made by Arminians in 
discussing with Calvinists the merits of Christ and their im- 
putation to believers, arise from their supposing us to teach a 
transfer of moral character. Thus Dr. Clarke, in comment- 
ing on 2 Cor. 5 : 21, "He hath made him to be sin for us," 
&c. says : " This text has been made the foundation of a 
most blasphemous doctrine, viz. that our sins were imputed to 
Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of 
Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; 
* * * that Christ may be considered as the greatest of 
sinners, because all the sins of mankind were imputed to 
him." But as no Calvinist supposes that the imputation of 
Christ's righteousness gives to the believer a moral purify 
equal to that of the Saviour, so no Calvinist teaches that 
Christ became impure, or was morally blackened by " bear- 
ing our sins." 

It is not so easy to account for Dr. Clarke's errors in an- 
other parallel instance. In speaking of our Lord's agony in 
the garden (Luke 22 : 43, 44), he says : " Some think it was 
occasioned by the Divine wrath pressing in upon him, for 
as he was bearing the sin of the world, God looked on and 
treated him as if he were a sinner." " There is something," 
he says, " very shocking in this supposition, and yet it is truly 
* First Chock. 



Let. XI IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. 199 

astonishing how general it is." If it be replied, that Christ 
himself complains while hanging on the cross, " Why hast 
thou (God the Father) forsaken me?" Dr. Clarke tries to 
evade the force of this text, by supposing it merely ' to mean, 
"to what sort of persons hast thou left me?" Or, "how 
astonishing the wickedness of those persons into whose hands 
I have fallen V 

But let us see whether Dr. Clarke himself does not hold to 
" the very shocking supposition" of " the Divine wrath press- 
ing upon our Lord." On the next page he informs us : 
" Christ was now suffering, the just for the unjust, that he 
might bring us to God : that he was bearing in his body the 
punishment due to their sins, I have no doubt ; and that the 
agony of his mind in these vicarious sufferings caused the 
bloody sweat," &c. Now how could our Lord "bear the 
punishment due to sin," without bearing the " Divine wrath ?" 
Is not God "angry with the wicked" — "does he not hate 
all workers of iniquity" — " is not the zoages of sin death"-— 
and can there be this curse of the Divine law and yet no 
"wrath of God?" So, in commenting on Gen. 3 : 24, "He 
drave out the man," Dr. C. says : " God's displeasure against 
sinful man is to be noted." Yet he rejects the supposition 
" that Christ was at all under the displeasure of his heavenly 
Father," in " bearing the punishment of sin !" And he 
further says that our Lord endured the " utmost anguish and 
grief of soul," which were "produced, by a supernatural 
cause" (Com. Matt. 22 :44); and "that it was an unprece- 
dented and indescribable agony" (Matt. 26 : 38); "most 
overwhelming anguish, the most extreme which the soul can 
feel ; excruciating torture of spirit." All this was the pun- 
ishment due to sin, yet there was "no displeasure of God?" 

So also, when Paul says, " Christ hath redeemed us from 
the curse of the law, being made a curse for us," how could 
he be under the Divine curse, if not under " Divine wrath ?" 
Isaiah, too, declares, "The Lord laid (caused to meet) on 






200 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMDQANISM. Let. XI. 

Mm the iniquity of us all," and Dr. Clarke explains thus : 
"He was the subject on which all the rays collected on the 
focal point fell. These fiery rays," he adds, "which should 
have fallen on all mankind, diverged from Divine Justice 
* * * and converged on him. So the Lord caused to 
meet on him the punishment due to the iniquities of all/' 
Now if this do not amount to " the Divine wrath pressing 
upon" the glorious Sufferer, what terms would convey that 
meaning ? We cannot even plausibly account for these 
strange contradictions of Dr. Clarke, except on the suppo- 
sition that he thought he was combating what he regards as 
the Galvinistic idea of a transfer of moral character; i. e. 
that Christ was personally defiled, or made personally impure, 
by the imputation of man's sin ! This absurdity has been 
often charged, but never proved against Calvinists. Here 
New School Presbyterians and Methodists make common 
cause in their assaults upon our doctrines. 

By what authority then do Fletcher and other Arminians 
charge the Calvinistic doctrine of imputed righteousness with 
encouraging men " to lie easy in the mire of iniquity V- 
Nothing but the grossest abuse of our views and perversion 
of their obvious import, could lead to such a result. " Faith 
receives and rests on Christ and his righteousness, and is the 
alone instrument of justification. " But it is immediately 
added: "It is not alone in the person justified, but is ever 
accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead 
faith, but worketh by love." * Of course, if any one finds 
his faith inducing him to "lie easy in the mire of iniquity," 
he thus demonstrates that he has no true and living faith, but 
is a self-deceiver. And just so far as any genuine believer ever 
realized such indulgence to sin in his life, he proves himself 
" a backslider in heart," and obscures any evidence he may 
ever have possessed that he is " born of G-od." In such cir- 
cumstances, his confidence in his good estate is mere pre- 
* Confession, chap. 11. 



Let. XI. IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. 201 

sumption — a dangerous delusion. Nor does it follow that 
God regards such backsliders (say David) as " all fair and 
undefiled," while they wallow in the adulterer's mire and the 
murderer's gore." * On the contrary, the Scriptures ex- 
pressly teach, that the Divine displeasure was kindled against 
David, on more than one such occasion ; nor were his crimes 
less hateful in the sight of Infinite Purity, because commit- 
ted by a justified person ; but rather much more abominable. 

But when we inquire whether David, by those crimes, 
ceased to have any interest in the justifying grace of God — • 
whether all his sins which had been pardoned, were again 
laid to his charge, and his Saviour's merits, sufferings, right- 
eousness and intercession no longer availed for him before 
the throne — in a word, whether he ceased to be a regenerate 
person, and became " a child of the devil," until he was 
again "born of the Spirit," &c. the question is one that must 
be decided on different grounds. Calvinists believe, that 
though God " visited his iniquity with stripes and his trans- 
gressions with the rod, yet his loving Icindness did he not ut- 
terly take from him, nor suffer his faithfulness to fail." Psalm 
89 : 33. We admit that if David had died with those dread- 
ful crimes unrepented of, he must have perished — but the 
same " loving kindness" made such a result impossible, pro- 
longed his life and brought him to repentance, and reconcil- 
iation with God. And all this, without the shadow of merit 
on the part of the guilty king. 

Nor is the error of Fletcher less obvious to Calvinists in 
such passages as the following : "Let your light so shine be- 
fore men, that they may see your good works (i. e. your filthy 
rags and dung). " We are created in Christ Jesus to good 
works," i. e. to filthy rags. " Provoke one another to love and 
good works," i. e. to dross and filthy rags, &c. &c. But the 
extreme weakness and folly of this sort of argument is too 
plain to need any extended exposure. If " good works" be 
* Fletcher's Fourth Check. 



202 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XI. 

viewed merely as the meritorious ground of pardon and justi- 
fication, every Calvinist will cheerfully adopt such statements 
as his own. In this sense they are nothing but "filthy rags." 
But as the gracious u fruits of the Spirit," the evidences of 
the new birth, and the ornaments of the Christian life, good 
works cannot be too highly prized nor too diligently culti- 
vated. To take the place of Christ's merits, or to supply any 
supposed deficiency therein, every Christian will esteem his 
own virtues as " dung," " dross," " filthy rags." And this 
view is adopted by both Wesley and Fletcher, viz. u that the 
blood and righteousness of Christ are the sole meritorious 
cause. of our salvation."* Thus the blow by which Fletcher 
aimed to overturn Calvinism, recoils upon himself, demolishes 
his own system ! 

It is difficult, moreover, to harmonize such extracts as that 
last given, with other expressions from the same source. 
Thus in the Minutes of Conference in 1770, Mr. Wesley 
writes as follows on the subject of "merit and good works:" 
"As to merit itself, of which we have been so dreadfully 
afraid: we are rewarded according to our works; yea, be- 
cause of our works. How does this differ from 'for the sake 
of our works?' And how differs this from secundum merita 
operum — as our works deserve ! Can you split this hair ? 
I doubt I cannot." But this is unmitigated Arminianism, 
or rather Pelagianism. 

What were Mr. Wesley's precise views of the nature of 
Christ's active obedience or righteousness in behalf of the 
sinner, is not apparent. In the first volume of his miscella- 
neous works, when as yet we may suppose he had not ma- 
tured his system, he speaks of Christ's " satisfaction of (rod's 
justice, by the offering his body, &c. and fulfilling the law of 
God perfectly." And again : " Christ therefore is now the 
righteousness of all them that truly believe. He paid for 
them the ransom by his death. He for them fulfilled the law 
* First Check, p. IS. 



Let. XI. IMPUTED KIGHTEOUSNESS. 203 

in bis life. So that now in him, every believer may be called 
afulfiller of the law." By such language as this, when we 
compare it with other statements from the same pen, we are 
at a loss to know what is intended. For example, when we 
open the third volume of his miscellaneous works, we find 
him replying to Mr. Hervey in the following manner: "If 
he was our substitute as to penal suffering," remarks Hervey, 
"why not as to justifying obedience ?" "The former," an- 
swers Wesley, " is expressly asserted in Scripture. The 
latter is not," &c. Here he admits a kind of substitution as 
to penal sufferings, very much in the same manner that some 
New School men speak of Christ as our substitute ; that is, 
his sufferings were a substitute for the execution of the legal 
penalty; a display for governmental purposes; an opening of 
the way of pardon and acceptance; according to which, as 
Wesley asserts it, "we are rewarded as our works deserve/' 
That this is his meaning, appears as follows : Mr. Hervey 
remarks, "In order to entitle us to a reward, there must be 
an imputation of Christ's righteousness." Wesley replies, 
" There must be an interest in Christ. And then every man 
shall receive his own reward according to his own labor." Mr. 
Hervey introduces an objector as saying, "If Christ's perfect 
obedience be ours, we have no more need of pardon than 
Christ himself" — a stale quibble, as old at least, as Socinus, 
the father of Unitarianism. To which Wesley replies, " The 
consequence is good. You have started an objection which 
you cannot answer !" "Both the branches of the law," says 
Mr. Hervey, "the preceptive and the penal, in the case of 
guilt contracted, must be satisfied." " Not so," replies Wes- 
ley. " Christ, by his death alone, fully satisfied for the sins 
of the whole world." " The cure of sin," says Hervey, " will 
be perfected in heaven." "Nay, surely," adds Wesley, "in 
paradise, if not sooner!" Is this the doctrine of an Armin- 
ian purgatory, "to cure sin?" What else can it mean? 
This interpretation is confirmed by what follows: "This 



204 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XII. 

freedom from sin," adds Hervey, " is a noble prerogative of 
the beatific vision." "No," replies Wesley, "it would then 
come too late. If sin remains in us till the day of judgment, 
it will remain forever." Sin, it seems, may remain in us till 
we get to paradise [or purgatory], but no longer : then, " if 
not sooner," it must be cured! A good old Popish way of 
salvation, which might have been traveled to heaven safely, 
for aught that appears, without any atonement. 



LETTER XII. 

SINLESS PERFECTION. 

Rev. Sir — The discussion of what you are pleased to call 
" Christian Perfection," i. e. the entire freedom of many 
Christians from all sin, in thought, word and deed, for years 
prior to the great change of death, introduces some of the 
more practical features of your scheme of religion. 

Wesley, it is worthy to be premised, traces this unscrip- 
tural sentiment as far back at least as Pelagius, in the fourth 
century. " I verily believe," he says, " the real heresy of 
Pelagius was neither more nor less than this, the holding 
that Christians may, by the grace of God, go on to perfection." 
And lest such suspicious ancestry should bring the doctrine 
into disrepute, he adds of Pelagius, " I would not affirm that 
he was not one of the holiest men of the age." * 

But Mr. Wesley might have commenced the genealogy of 
Perfectionism at a much earlier period. " In most of the 
false religions of the world, the doctrine of human perfection, 

* Of Pelagius we learn from the best authorities that he " denied original 
sin, maintained man's plenary ability, the moral purity of infants, justifica- 
tion by our own righteousness/' with some other unseriptural tenets. And 
yet of this heretic, Wesley says, "I guess he was both a wise and a lioly 
man." "A fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind." Sorm. A'ol. ii. p. 323. 
Misc. Works, vol. iii. p. 259. 



Let. XII. SINLESS PERFECTION. 205 

manifested in some favored instances, has, if we mistake not, 
formed an essential article of belief. A kind of perfection 
has been claimed for Greek and Roman sages, for Hindoo 
devotees and for Mohammedan saints. Pantheism, the philo- 
sophical basis of most of the popular systems of idolatry, 
assumes as a fundamental position, such a union of man to 
the Deity as constitutes the leading principle of modern Per- 
fectionism. This Pantheism is supposed by many to date 
farther back than the universal deluge. The Gnostics of 
primitive times, the New Platonists of Egypt, the brethren 
and sisters of the Free Spirit at a later day, the primitive 
Quakers, the French Prophets, the Shakers, and all the great 
body of the Mystics, were all strenuous advocates of Perfec- 
tionism.* Let us inquire into the theological relations of this 
distinguishing characteristic of so many forms of both ancient 
and modern error. 

VI. The Difficulties of Arminian Methodism, in 

REFERENCE TO " SlNLESS PERFECTION." 

We shall be met at the threshold of this discussion with a 
stout denial that this is a doctrinal feature of modern Meth- 
odism. It is a matter both of surprise and regret, that the 
advocates of the system should seem to expose themselves 
to the charge of a want of candor in the occasional debates 
which take place upon this question. Would it ever be im- 
agined by an honest, upright, conscientious man, that when 
it is so often and so vehemently denied that Methodists 
maintain the doctrine of " Sinless Perfection/ 7 all that is 
meant is, that they reject the phraseology, the -words, not 
that they do not hold and teach the sentiment ? Yet that 
this is the simple verity, is proved by a reference to their 
standard authors. Thus : " We are all agreed that we may 
be saved from all sin before death ; i. e. from all sinful tem- 
pers and desires." " Grown Christians are in such a sense 
* Biblical Repertory, July, 1842. 
18 



206 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XII. 

perfect as to be freed from evil tempers and desires. Every 
one of these can say, I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless 
I live, &c. ; words that manifestly describe a deliverance from 
inward as well as from outward sin." Doct. Tracts, pp. 293, 
296. These extracts are made from a volume which, as we 
are told in the advertisement, was originally bound and pub- 
lished with the Form of Discipline, and is now " stereotyped," 
for the benefit of the church. Many parallel passages might 
be added, from the sermons of Wesley and others, but these 
will enable us to understand what is meant when " sinless 
perfection" is disclaimed with so much vehemence. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that Mr. Wesley, as White- 
field tells us, " thought meanly of Abraham, though eminently 
1 the friend of Grod/ and of David, the man after God's own 
heart." Much less that he affirmed, as we learn from the 
same testimony, " that no Baptist or Presbyterian writer he 
had ever read, knew any thing of the liberties of Christ V 
"What," replies Whitefield, "neither Bunyan, Henry, Fla- 
vel, Halyburton, nor any of the New England and Scotch 
divines ? See, my dear sir," adds Whitefield, " what narrow- 
spiritedness and want of charity arise from your principles. 
Do not, henceforth, say aught against election, as destructive 
of meekness and love." 

Perhaps no publication (if we except the writings of the 
first apostle of Methodism,) is more popular among modern 
Arminians, than the labored and superficial work of Fletcher, 
which he entitles, "Checks to Antinomianism j" the object 
of which is to cry down Calvinism by an unpopular epithet. 
It is a fact, strictly analogous to past experience of human 
weakness and fallibility, that those who urge this unfounded 
charge of Antinomian tendencies, are themselves most guilty. 
This truth is aptly illustrated in the doctrine under review. 
It is not that these perfectionists imagine they live without 
transgressing the " moral law," but they regard it as no longer 
in force. Christians are not under law, but under grace; 



Let. XII. SINLESS PEKFECTION. 207 

under a milder code of legislative requirement than the Dec- 
alogue ', a form of obligation suited to man's impaired ability ; 
brought down to his capacity as a fallen creature, and to 
which he may and can yield a perfect obedience, and is there- 
fore sinlessly perfect. Hear upon this topic the standards of 
Methodism : * " Clirist is the end of the law — 1. The Mosaic 
law. 2. The Adamic law, called the law of works," which 
required that man should use to the glory of God all the 
powers with which he was created, and which " was propor- 
tioned to his original powers, and required that he should 
always think, speak and act precisely right, in every point 
whatever." " He was well able to do so, and God could not 
but require the service he was able to pay." Then what 
follows ? Why, " Adam fell •" and in consequence, " no 
man is able to perform the service which the Adamic law 
requires." And now for the conclusion: "And no man is 
obliged to perform it. God doth not require it of any man. 
Christ is the end of the Adamic as well as the Mosaic law. 
By his death he put an end to both. He hath abolished both 
the one and the other, with regard to man ; and the obliga- 
tion to observe either the one or the other is vanished away. 
Nor is any man living bound to observe the Adamic more 
than the Mosaic law." This, I should suppose, is Antino- 
mianism of sufficient "proof" to suit the appetite of the 
grossest devotee of sensuality. This is the modern method 
of perfection — not by ascending the steep of moral obligation, 
but by bringing the requirements of the Divine law down to a 
level with the sinner's convenience ! 

But as if to render the doctrine absurd as well as licentious, 
Mr. Wesley tells us that " faith working or animated by love 
is all that God now requires of man, and that he has substi- 
tuted (not sincerity) but love in the room of angelic (and 
Adamic) perfection." "This love," he adds, "is the loving 
the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength, 
f Doct. Tracts, pp. 330, 332, 



208 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XII. 

and our neighbor as ourselves, i. e. every man as our own 
souls."* But this is entirely up to the standard of both an- 
gelic and Adamic perfection. 

So also in his " Plain Account of Christian Perfection/' he 
defines it, " the loving Grod with all our heart, mind, soul, 
and strength. This implies (he says,) that no wrong temper, 
none contrary to love, remains in the soul ; and that all the 
thoughts, words and actions are governed by pure love." 
But what more than this does the moral law require ? Could 
Adam before his fall do more than this ? Can saints and 
angels in heaven ?f Yet he admits that a perfect Christian 
is not freed from " infirmities, ignorance, and mistake;" but 
" where every word and action springs from love, a mistake is 
not properly sin." Still he further assures us, these sinless 
mistakes " need the atoning blood." Such is a fair specimen 
of the jargon everywhere current among the followers of this 
great Arminian ! 

Be it remembered, therefore, that although " no man living 
is obliged to observe" the moral law, yet "Christian perfec- 
tion" surpasses the limits of moral obligation, and performs 
works of supererogation, more than can righteously be de- 
manded. Every perfect Methodist " loves Grod with all his 
heart, soul, mind, and strength," and "all his thoughts, 
words, and actions, are governed by pure love f* and nothing 
more was ever required by the " moral law." 

But that we may more fully comprehend the mysteries of 
this singular subject, let us dwell a few moments further upon 
its theological relations. Mr. Fletcher (after Wesley,) ad- 
mits that the most advanced Christian falls short, in this 
life, of the obedience required by the moral or Adamic law, 
which he calls "the Creator's anti-evangelical, paradisaical 
law of innocence," and which he thinks has been abolished. 

* Doct. Tracts, p. 333. 

| Wesley himself affirms — "The loving God with all the heart," " is tho 
most exalted height of man or angel." Misc. Works, vol. i. p. 228. 



Let. XII. SINLESS PERFECTION. 209 

Instead of that original constitution, he holds to " a milder 
law, adapted to our state and circumstances" — " the evangeli- 
cal mediatorial law of our Redeemer." (See last Check.) It 
is by this milder law that Christians are tried, and by which 
they are correctly considered " perfect m " that is, as having 
yielded complete obedience to the only law which now requires 
their respect and submission. 

Now, without pausing particularly to inquire what is the 
precise meaning of a " milder law ;" that is, a law less strict, 
less perfect, less like God, than the one which we know was 
" holy, just, and good ;" without too nicely inquiring, whether 
this new law is less holy, less just, and less good ; whether 
the nature of moral good and evil is changed, so that this new 
law of God will not condemn all sin ; whether the moral law 
be indeed " anti-evangelical," " against the promises of God" 
(Gal. 3 : 21); and lastly, where this milder law is revealed in 
the New Testament, by Him who said, "I am come not' to 
destroy the law;" or by him who inquires, "Do we make 
void the law through faith ? God forbid !" — or by him who 
asserts, " Sin is the transgression of the law" — not " of a 
Divine law" as Mr. Fletcher has it. Passing all these, let us 
examine narrowly the logical consistency of the very ground- 
work of the scheme. Man, they tell us, became by his fall 
morally unable to render the obedience required by the moral 
law, and " God does not require it of any man ;" but in infin- 
ite grace, has placed us under " the new evangelical law of 
our Redeemer," which we are morally able to obey, and are 
bound to respect in thought, word and deed. It was the great 
work which was given Christ to do, to make a " perfect satis- 
faction" for our " original sin," to introduce a milder law, 
and apply the merits of his blood to atone for our deficiencies 
and shortcomings of obedience to the evangelical law, which 
deficiencies do " need the atoning blood," even in our estate 
of sinless perfection. 

What a rope of sand have we here ! In the first place, 
18* 



210 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XII. 

how strange an abuse of language, to say the least, is it to 
represent it as a distinguishing feature of gospel grace, that 
Christ should " abolish" or "put an end" to a law with re- 
gard to man, which law, man having become unable to obey, 
was not injustice bound to observe, nor could justly be pun- 
ished for neglecting to observe ! ! And in the second, place 7 
if Christ has introduced a milder -law, requiring no more 
than imperfect sincere obedience — if the new law is so adapted 
to our weak and fallen condition, that instead of the rigorous 
exactions of the " moral law," we are now bound by milder 
obligations, and Grod will accept the less perfect (or imperfect) 
service we are able to render, and can justly require of us no 
other — still the inquiry returns, where is the wonderful grace 
discoverable in this arrangement? What need of Christ's 
dying to secure the acceptance on the part of the Judge, of 
such obedience as it would be unjust for him not to accept ? 
Or in other words, did Christ die to prevent unrighteousness 
with Grod ? Did he die to avert from our heads punishment 
for imperfect obedience } when in fact we can be justly bound 
to obey no law which requires any other than imperfect obe- 
dience ? 

But an appeal is made to the Scriptures in defense of this 
mass of incoherencies. The doctrine which we have endeav- 
ored to state, as nearly as possible in the words of its advo- 
cates, would seem to carry with it its own refutation, and it 
would appear to be altogether a work of supererogation to 
enter into any further argument to prove its folly. Profound 
indeed must be the ignorance of the purity, perpetuity, per- 
fection and spirituality of the Divine law, and great must be 
the inattention to the plain statements of the Scriptures, 
which will admit such a sentiment into a theological system ! 
" In many things we offend all ;" or, all are in many things 
chargeable with sin. James 3:2. " What is man that he 
should be clean, or he that is born of a woman that he should 
be righteous." Job 15 : 14. " There is not a just man on 



Let. XII. SINLESS PERFECTION. 211 

earth that doeth good and sinneth not." Eccles. 7 : 20. 
" For there is no man that sinneth not." 1 Kings 8 : 46. 
And in chap. 9 : 20, Job asserts, "If I say I am perfect, it 
shall also prove me perverse." Paul also, speaking of him- 
self, says : " Not as though I were already perfect." Phil. 
3 : 12. We have reason to suspect that neither of these an- 
cient worthies knew any thing about "sinless perfection." 
The perfect Christian, according to the representations of 
Holy Writ, is he who continually aspires to universal holi- 
ness of heart and life. " It is said of Noah, Job and others, 
that they were perfect — of all Christians, that they are com- 
plete — of Zachariah and Elizabeth, that they walked in all 
the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 
But, it is granted on all hands, that these and other terms of 
similar import are often used in a qualified and restricted 
sense; and therefore no decisive proof can be drawn from 
their appearance in this connection. They occur in the sacred 
writings, as they do in the language of ordinary conversation, 
as signifying high degrees of excellency, but not absolute 
perfection. When we say of an individual, ' He is a perfect 
character/ we are never suspected of intending to convey 
the idea that he is without a fault — that he is an angel as to 
his moral purity — that he is free from all imperfection in the 
discharge of duty. Instead of this what we mean to express 
is, that he is a person of uniformly correct and praiseworthy 
deportment. His character is well balanced, and, in this 
sense, complete — his life is a well-regulated life — there is no 
one respect in which he especially fails — and we therefore 
apply to him the idea of perfection, and point to him as an 
example to be imitated by others."* Such was Job and such 
was Paul ; each of whom would nevertheless willingly con- 
fess, " not as though I were already perfect." 

Again : If one person could be found in a perfectly sinless 
state, there would be one exception to the use of that univer- 
* Snodgrass on Sanctiflcation, p. 32. 



212 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XII. 

sal prayer taught by our Lord himself, in which, whilst we 
are instructed to say, " Give us this day our daily bread" 
we are required, with no less frequency, to implore forgive- 
ness of our " trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against 
us." There would be one who could say, I have no sin daily 
committed, why should I supplicate daily forgiveness ? Thus 
is the commandment of the Most High God made of none 
effect by the traditions of men. 

And what is even more revolting to every Christian feeling 
— if the wise king of Israel were now on earth, and should 
utter that humble acknowledgment, " There is not a just 
man on earth that doeth good and sinneth not," many a 
Methodist would start from his seat to correct his error, and 
erase the line from the records of Inspiration. Yes ! what- 
ever Solomon may have thought, there are now just men on 
earth who can kneel in the presence of God, and thank him 
that they love him as fervently and constantly as they ought, 
and obey him as perfectly as they ought; and this, too, in 
direct defiance of their own Article, which asserts that " good 
works cannot endure the severity of God's judgment." Art. 
10. We had been accustomed to think that such were the 
" height, and depth, and length, and breadth," of the love 
of Christ, which passes knowledge, and such the imperfections 
and corruptions of the body of this death, that no mortal man 
would return to the Saviour a love as strong, and constant, 
and fervent as he ought; but it seems we labored under a 
mistake. We had forgotten those perfect Christians, who 
had they lived in the days of Isaiah, when as yet the proph- 
ecy was not sealed up, must, for the credit of Divine truth, 
have proposed an amendment in the 64th chapter : " We are 
all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as 
filthy rags — excepting a few very good people called Method- 
ists." 

But in reply to the numerous express declarations of the 
writers of the Old Testament in opposition to this doctrine, 



Let. XII. SINLESS PERFECTION. 213 

Wesley affirms that " they^lived under a dispensation greatly 
inferior to the Christian, and that nothing can be argued 
from their confessions of universal sin. Christ, too, tells 
us, Matt. 11 : 11, " Among them that are born of women, 
there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist ; not- 
withstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven 
(viz. the gospel dispensation) is greater than he." This 
passage he interprets as referring to a degree of personal holi- 
ness greater than belonged to any of the ancient people of God. 
But could it have been really the opinion of Mr. W. that 
• the least" or feeblest and most imperfect Christian in gospel 
times, is a more holy and heavenly-minded person than were 
David, and Job, and Isaiah ? Will any sensible Methodist 
avow such a sentiment ? Dr. Clarke, in his note on the pass- 
age, says, "that it is not in holiness or devotedness to God, 
that the least in the kingdom is greater than John, but that 
it is merely in the difference of the ministry " The testimony 
of this distinguished Methodist is true. 

Nor do these great leaders of the Methodist host harmonize 
much better in their views of James 3:2, "If any man 
offend not in word, the same is a perfect man." Wesley 
quotes this text to prove the doctrine of " Christian Perfec- 
tion." But Dr. Clarke says, " the words, perfect man, mean 
a man fully instructed in Divine things — an adult Christian 
— one thoroughly instructed in the doctrines of the gospel." 
And to show conclusively how absurd it is to employ this 
text in proof of " Christian Perfection," Dr. C. adds, " how 
a man's cautiousness in what he says can be a proof that he 
has every passion and appetite under control, I cannot see." 
According to this, a man may indulge all the bad passions in 
his heart; if he can only manage to conceal them, and not 



tan l 



offend in word, he is a perfect Christi 

Dr. Clarke and Mr. Wesley, however, unite their forces 
when they come to parry the point of the argument drawn 
from James 3 : 2. The substance of what they have to say is, 



214 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XII. 

" that this text proves nothing against sinless perfection, al- 
though the Apostle does assert, l in many things we offend 
all'/ for if the Apostle includes himself in the pronoun we, 
he must also include himself, when, speaking of the tongue, 
he says, ' Therewith bless we G-od, and therewith curse we 
men/ We cannot suppose James was guilty of cursing." 
But a little attention will show the futility of this reasoning. 
In the first passage, James says, " we offend all/' or, we all 
offend — are guilty of breaking G-od's law " in many things." 
But James does not say, "With the tongue we all bless 
Grod, and we all curse men." Every one familiar with the 
common forms of speech, knows that the pronoun we is often 
employed to denote a general prevalence of any thing, or a 
prevailing tendency or liability, among men. But could the 
truth-speaking Grod have said, that "we all sin in many 
things," if it were true, that many men do not sin in any 
thing? "If we," says the last of the Apostles, "if we say 
we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not 
in us." 

We have thus aimed to state fairly and in the language of 
its friends, this dogma of Arminianism, and to adduce some 
of the more obvious scriptural arguments which overthrow 
it. But as few doctrines are equally in favor with Method- 
ists, let us examine a little more particularly its scriptural 
foundations. Every argument thus drawn from the armory 
of inspired truth, will be " a difficulty" in the way of the 
system. 

1. There is great reason to fear that the existence of such 
a dogma among the members of any sect, is a sad evidence 
of self-deception. In his tract on " Christian Perfection," 
instead of cautioning his followers against the perils of " a 
deceived heart," Mr. Wesley rather encourages them to 
think themselves " to be something when they are nothing." 
Speaking of one of those " who fancy they have attained (to 
perfection) when they have not," he says, "but he is de- 



Let. XII. SINLESS PERFECTION. 215 

ceived. What then ? It is a harmless mistake, while he 
feels nothing but love in his heart. It is a mistake which 
generally argues great grace, a high degree both of holi- 
ness and happiness." In other words, this "sinless mistake" 
which " needs the atoning blood" to cleanse its filthiness, is 
an evidence of superior attainments in religion ! It need 
scarcely be said, that in the experience of such men as Paul, 
Edwards, Payson, Brainerd and others, the holiest men of 
modern and ancient times, no such pretension ever appears. 
Paul indeed thought "himself alive without the law once;" 
"but when the commandment came," when enlightened by 
the Holy Spirit, he was enabled to understand how exceed- 
ing broad, spiritual and perfect were its requirements; then 
" he died," i. e. died unto all hope of fulfilling the demands 
of the law, or satisfying Divine justice — then he exclaims, 
" wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the 
body of this death !" 

Head, too, the diaries of Edwards and others, whom all 
admit to have been preeminent in holiness. And " in turn- 
ing over their pages, you will find that, as the piety of the 
individual rises, his sense of remaining sin becomes deeper and 
more afflicting. The seasons of his closest communion with 
God, are the seasons in which he sees most in himself to be 
repented of and subdued. The nearer he comes to the 
throne, the lower he lies in confession and self-abasement. 
It is not when he hears of Grod by the hearing of the ear, but 
when his eye seeth him, that he abhors himself and repents 
in dust and ashes. In short, it is when his devotion burns 
with the brightest and purest flame, that he has the clearest 
insight into the depravity of his own nature : so that, while 
he is sensible of an increase of grace, he is equally sensible 
that more grace is still needed to carry on and complete his 
deliverance from sin." * 

2. A second argument is derived from the examples and 
* Dr. Snodgrass. 



216 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XTI: 

confessions of the most distinguished saints of patriarchal and 
apostolic times. The intoxication of Noah, the dissimulation 
of Abraham, the distrust of Jacob, the criminal rashness of 
Moses — not to speak of the humiliating crimes of David and 
Solomon, the imperfections of Job and Jeremiah, of Eli, 
Samuel, Asa, Hezekiah and Josiah — all are " ensamples" for 
our warning. Nor was the case different with Peter, who, as 
Paul says, " was to be blamed" — and therefore he " withstood 
him to his face." James, too, and John seem to have felt 
the spirit of revenge, and would have called "fire from 
heaven" to execute their wrath upon the Samaritans. 

And so with their confessions. "Mine iniquities have 
gone over my head, they are too heavy for me." " Who can 
understand his errors; cleanse thou me from secret faults" — 
intimating that there are none, not even Christians, without 
such faults to be cleansed. "Behold, I am vile," says Job, 
and Nehemiah and Daniel include themselves in their con- 
fessions of the sins of Israel. 

3. The Scriptures speak of a spiritual warfare in the 
best men, and which is inconsistent with the doctrine of per- 
fection. " The flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit 
is against the flesh : and these are contrary the one to the 
other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." In 
like manner in Rom. 7 the Apostle depicts in most striking 
terms this great contest on the battle-field of man's heart. 
Arminians pretend that he is describing the struggles of the 
unregenerate — but could any such truly say, " / delight in 
the law of God after the inward man ?" It is an attainment 
of the good man, that " his delight is in the law of the Lord." 
" Oh, how love I thy law." And Paul's strong sense of in- 
dwelling sin extorts the confession — "I am carnal, sold under 
sin." 

4. But says Wesley, "Ezekiel (chap. 36: 25-29 has a 
promise, than which none can be more clear : 1 1 will sprin- 
kle clean water upon you and you shall be clean ; from all 



Let. XII. SINLESS PERFECTION. 217 

your idols and from all your filthiness will I cleanse you : I 
will also save you from all your uncleanness/ So also John : 
1 For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he 
might destroy the works of the devil f and i Christ gave him- 
self for the church, * * * that she might not have spot or 
wrinkle or any such thing/ "* But if these and scores of simi- 
lar texts prove anything on the subject, they prove far too 
much. They prove that all Israel are " cleansed from idols and 
filthiness," and the whole church " saved from uncleanness !" 
But no Arminian is prepared for such a sentiment. The plain 
and obvious meaning of such passages is, that sanctification is 
one of the great and precious blessings of the " New Cove- 
nant" — and that to every believer is secured a perfect deliv- 
erance from the power and pollution of sin. The time when 
these promises are to be fulfilled, is quite another question, 
and is left unsettled. 

5. The doctrine of entire or "Sinless Perfection" is dis- 
proved by the prayers of inspired men. lt Enter not into 
judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man 
living be justified." "The Lord fills the poor with good 
things, but the rich (those who say they are 'rich and in- 
creased with goods') he sends empty away." Such rich ones 
only prove that they " are wretched and miserable and poor 
and blind and naked." The true Christian, on the contrary, 
is deeply sensible of his imperfections even in his holy things, 
and "his continual suit to God," the judicious Hooker says, 
is " that he would bear with our infirmities and pardon our 
offenses." 

6. The sixth argument against perfection in this life, is 
founded on that large class of texts which teaches that per- 
fect conformity to God is to be the peculiar reward of a future 
existence. " I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy like- 
ness " — " when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we 
shall see him as he is." Why are " the spirits of just men 

*Doct. Tracts, p. 305. 

19 



218 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XII. 

made perfect" said to constitute the citizens of that sinless 
country, if many of them are made perfect before they enter 
the tomb ? 

7. The same result is reached, when we consider the dis- 
cipline and afflictions to which the best of God's people are 
subject. He thus utters the voice of his providence : "Arise 
ye, for this is not your rest, for it is polluted." " When 
God with rebuke corrects man for iniquity, he makes his 
beauty to consume away like a moth." " Whom the Lord 
loveth he chasteneth, and scourge th every son whom he re- 
ceiveth." " As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten." 
u He chastens us for our profit, that we might be partakers 
of his holiness." But if in any case this object is already 
attained, why are they still made to suffer ? No wise and 
merciful parent ever inflicts needless pain on his own children. 

And who can doubt that the fact, as thus stated, is a fair 
representation of what occurs in the life of every Christian, up 
to the moment of his release from the body ? For where is 
the "son" to be found whom the father "chasteneth not," 
and whom he does not continue to chasten as long as he 
lives ? We have never seen him, in our day ; nor is there 
any allusion to him in the records of the past. " We, that 
are in this tabernacle, do groan, being burdened " — " we, who 
have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves, groan 
within ourselves." All believers, without regard to the 
degree of their sanctification, are thus affected. They groan 
under the pressure, which is still upon them in the trial of 
their faith. " Our light affliction," is a phrase which they 
have frequent occasion to pronounce ; " the sufferings of this 
present time," are things with which they have a daily and 
an intimate acquaintance. 

Here, then, is a chain of truths, inseparably connected ; 
and, by necessity, leading to the conclusion, that there is. no 
sinless perfection in the present world. All Christians are 
subjected, while here, to chastisements ; all chastisements 



Let. XII. SINLESS PERFECTION. 219 

are from the hand of God; the only present object which 
God has in view, in chastising his people, is to make them 
more holy ; he cannot be supposed to chastise them " will- 
ingly," or without a reason ; and hence it follows, that none 
of their number are so holy as to be beyond the necessity of 
a still higher degree of sanctification. The argument is 
perfect, and the conclusion so legitimate, that it would seem 
impossible for a candid mind to evade it, or be insensible to 
its force.* 

8. It is no small presumption against Perfectionism, that 
most of its arguments are scarcely even plausible. Thus says 
Wesley : " G-od commands us to be perfect, as our Father is 
perfect." But the same God prohibits all sin in mankind. 
Does it thence follow that some men pass through a long life 
without sin ? Again we are told, " that provision is made in 
the gospel for the attainment of perfection." No doubt of it. 
So provision is made for deliverance from pain, sickness and 
sorrow. The question is, when will this take place? So 
also, many of their favorite proof texts belong to justification, 
not to sanctification. " The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth 
us from all sin." This refers to the pardon of sin — for not 
the atonement, but the Spirit of Christ by a direct influence, 
cleanseth the soul. It is true, the death of Christ is the ran- 
som-price ; but the text is more naturally interpreted, of the 
Divine agency. Besides, the time when this cleansing is 
done, even supposing it to refer to holiness, is left undecided. 
So when John says : " Whosoever is born of God doth not 
commit sin; for his seed (the seed of grace) remaineth in 
him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Now if 
this prove perfection, it proves it of all " who are born of 
God," i. e. all Christians. But Arminians themselves admit 
this to be not true. Besides, it proves the certain persever- 
ance of all the regenerated — "his seed remaineth in them." 
Further, John himself (ch. 1 : 8) says, " If we say we have 
* Dr. Snodgrass, pp. 72, 73. 



220 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XII. 

no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us," i. e. 
we are " destitute of the truth/' "are liars, and the truth is not 
in us," as John explains himself in his second chapter. If 
then we say, " we have no sin," we are no Christians. Such 
is the decision of Inspiration. 

What then does the Holy Spirit mean by the phrases, 
" doth not commit sin," " cannot sin V Dr. Clarke, as a 
matter of course, finds his favorite perfection in this as in 
scores of similar texts, and lifts up a warning voice against 
those " who plead for Baal I" But whether he means that 
every one a born of God " is "saved from all sin in this life,"* 
he does not inform us. Dr. Scott, wisely and in harmony 
with the Scriptures, interprets these phrases to refer to " living 
in the commission of allowed sin," and as teaching that it is 
impossible for any true believer " to sin with allowance, con- 
tinuance and satisfaction." To " commit sin " and to " do 
righteousness," both refer to the habit of life, not to individual 
acts. Of course they affirm nothing about " sinless perfec- 
tion." 

9. The testimony of church history is no less strongly in 
opposition to the dogma of Sinless Perfection. From the 
days of Augustine in the fourth century, down to John Wes- 
ley of the eighteenth, who have been the advocates of this 
unscriptural notion ? It has been confined to Pelagius and a 
few heretical sects, small in numbers and influence, and whose 
very names have always been a stench in the nostrils of the 
true church. To these must be added the great anti-chris- 
tian apostasy of Home. Her doctrine of Supererogation is 
only Perfectionism run mad! The favored children of this 
"mother of harlots and abominations of the earth," are not 
only perfect in all obedience required by the law, but perform 
a large amount of righteousness over and above their duty ! 
Of this treasury of merit, the Pope holds the infallible key, 
and distributes to all who are in arrears to Divine justice ! 
* Com. on 1 John 3: 8. 



Let. XII. SINLESS PERFECTION. 221 

And how stands this matter now ? What evangelical church 
besides Arminian Methodism, shows any leaning toward this 
sinless dogma ? The Lutheran body, as well as several of the 
minor Baptist sects, are decided Arminians ; but here they 
agree with Calvinists. With the suspicious exceptions before 
stated, the followers of Wesley stand alone. Finney, Mahan 
and a few other Congregationalists of the Pelagian stamp, 
have gone over to their party — but with almost no exception, 
the true church of Christ in her various branches, pronounces 
Arminian Perfectionism a novelty among believers and a 
blotch upon the purity of Apostolic doctrine. In holding and 
zealously teaching this strange dogma, Methodism virtually 
charges the universal church with dangerous error. " Dark- 
ness covers the earth and thick darkness the people" — but 
in the Arminian Groshen, " light is in all their dwellings !" 

10. The fruits of Perfectionism, though checked in their 
full development by the admixture of much precious truth, 
have not unfrequently been of " the vine of Sodom and the 
clusters of Gomorrah." It led Wesley, as before stated, to 
regard self deception as an evidence of "great grace!" He 
himself tells us that in his day " some had left off searching 
the Scriptures," alleging that " Grod writes all the Scripture 
on our hearts; therefore we have no need to read it."* And 
he finds it needful to warn his followers "that some were 
wanting in gentleness, goodness, fidelity, a nice regard to 
truth, meekness, temperance. They did not receive reproof 
with gentleness — were not able to bear contradiction, without 
the appearance of resentment. 17 "They answer with angry 
tone, in a sharp or surly manner." He also cautions them 
against "enthusiasm," "An tinomianism," "self-indulgence," 
"sins of omission," " schism," "the love of some was hardly 
without dissimulation. Something like guile was found in 
their mouth." And on pages 68, 69 of the Book of Discip- 
line, we read — "The world says, l The Methodists are no 
• Doct. Tracts, p. 353. 

19* 



222 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIL 

better than other people* This is not true in the general." 
("God, I thank thee," said the self-righteous Pharisee, "that 
I am not as other men.") After thus publishing their supe- 
rior goodness, we are naturally led to expect from the same 
source, a very exalted character of that piety which is so 
much better than that of all the world besides. A few lines 
below, on the same page, we read — " How little faith is there 
among us ! How much love of the world ! Desire of plea- 
sure, of ease, of getting money" " What continual judging 
one another ! What gossiping, evil speaking, tale-bearing ! 
What want of moral honesty ! ! !" 

A still more unfavorable estimate is found in Wesley's 
" Sermon on the inefficacy of Christianity." He lays down 
three rules: — "Gain all you can." "Save all you can." 
"Give all you can." He admits "that many observe the 
first rule, and a few the second; but adds that he had "no 
reason to believe that five hundred in fifty thousand Method- 
ists observed the third rule." Yet he affirms " nothing can 
be more plain" than that all these last are " twofold more 
the children of hell than ever they were before I" By his 
own estimate, therefore, a large proportion of his followers 
were twice as wicked as before their conversion ! These, be 
it remembered, are their own estimates of the fruits of a sys- 
tem which they call "Scriptural Christianity;" and that, too, 
in its virgin vigor and efficiency. When such authors as Mr. 
Foster and Bishop Simpson exhibit Calvinism as " productive 
of recklessness, licentiousness and crime as its legitimate off- 
spring," &c* would it not be worth their while to look at 
home f " The tree is known by its fruits." 

But not only had " some" of these early Methodists left off 
" searching the Scriptures," but they had to be warned against 
supposing "dreams, voices, impressions, visions or revela- 
tions, to be from God," " imagining they had the gift of pro- 
phesying and discerning spirits," "thinking that because 
* Objections, &c. p. 213, &c. 



Let. XII. SINLESS PEKFECTION. 223 

they were filled with love, they did not need so much holi- 
ness I" And what is this but infidelity in disguise, substi- 
tuting the illapses and movings of the Spirit, as they suppose, 
in the room of the teachings of revelation. This is substan- 
tially Quakerism and Shakerism, or at least tends strongly in 
that direction. 

11. Those are widely mistaken who suppose that the per- 
fectionist dogma is a harmless mistake, or even good in some of 
its tendencies. If the views entertained of practical religion 
by all our wisest and holiest men, are worth anything, then 
Perfectionism is based upon gross error, and is a most dan- 
gerous delusion. It virtually explains away or repeals G-od's 
holy and unchangeable law. " The idea," says the late Dr. 
Archibald Alexander, " of bringing down the law to adapt it 
to the ability of fallen man, is absurd; for on that principle 
the more any man is under the dominion of sin, the less will 
the law require of him. This principle would go far to nul- 
lify the law altogether." Again : " If we are true Christ- 
ians, we do now possess such a spiritual knowledge of the 
law, that we are daily convinced of our want of conformity to 
it, and do see and feel something of the odious nature of the 
sin which dwells within us." Hence it follows, if we do not 
feel daily this sinfulness, it proves that we are not " true 
Christians." 

Again says the venerable Dr. A. Alexander, " The convic- 
tion of sin increases in the mind of the true believer, in pro- 
portion to his growth in grace. The more eminent any man is 
in piety, the deeper will be his sense of the inward defilement 
of sin and the greater his self-abhorrence." In other words, the 
more spiritual light is poured into his soul, the more clearly 
does he discover the filth and abomination of his depraved 
nature, as yet only partially sanctified. But if this be true 
religion, Wesley and his followers are egregiously mistaken — 
for their doctrine is, " that grown Christians see themselves to 
be free from all sin, both outward and inward." 



224 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XII. 

Hear the venerable Alexander once more : "They who 
dream of a perfection in this life, which leads them to think 
they are free from all sin, evidently have not the same hind 
of religion as the patriarch Job, ' a perfect and upright man/ 
Such are evidently ignorant of the purity and spirituality of 
the Divine law ; or ignorant of the true state of their own 
hearts." " There is no better evidence of an enlightened and 
renewed heart, than just views and feelings in regard to our 
own sins. It seems, at first view, wonderful that any person 
should be so blinded as to think that he has no sin. But 
there are many blinding influences — e the heart is deceitful 
above all things/ Nothing is more eflicient than spiritual 
pride /'* 

Once more : " In regard to a large part of sinful acts or 
omissions, most men remain ignorant of them, because they 
know not the extent and spirituality of the law; especially 
in regard to the affections and purposes of the heart, in which 
sin has its origin and its essence." " Souls under the sanc- 
tifying influence of the Holy Spirit, are led to see that their 
chief disease is one of the heart ; and before Grod they mourn 
daily over their want of holy feelings and emotions, and the 
many evils which they, by the application of the law, detect 
in themselves. Thus they are convinced that the heart 
itself which generates such sinful thoughts, must be despe- 
rately wicked. " The great business of the Christian is to 
oppose and mortify these corruptions, which remain after 
conversion. Hence there must be a perpetual conflict be- 
tween the flesh and the spirit, between the old man and the 
new." f 

* See " Practical Sermons/' pp. 35, 36. 

-j- The writer was once at a " class meeting," where an acquaintance of his 
gave very much such " an experience" as that described by Dr. Alexander. Up 
to this period, all had gone on prosperously, but the announcement of such 
sad imperfections was received with silence, disturbed perhaps by an occa- 
sional groan. My friend was evidently thought to be a backslider, and in 
danger of making shipwreck. 



Let. XII. SINLESS PERFECTION. 225 

Now it is obvious that if Dr. Alexander, in these extracts, 
describes the operations of the Spirit in sanctifying the soul, 
the genuine experiences of growth in grace, Arminian Per- 
fectionism must he a grievous self-delusion. Yet, if history 
record any truth, it is that every distinguished man of God, 
who has been made an ornament to genuine Christianity, and 
a rich blessing to his race, from the fourth to the eighteenth 
century, has had just such experience as that of Dr. Alexan- 
der. Such were Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, 
Turretine, the Erskines, Whitefield, Owen, Baxter, Edwards, 
Brainerd, Payson, M'Cheyne, Chalmers, and many others. 
We wish to judge no man. To his own master each must 
stand or fall. But so long as the rational mind arrives at its 
decisions by trains of logical deduction, it is impossible to 
avoid the inference that Perfectionism is only another name 
for blindness to the spirituality of the law, and consequent 
self-deception as to the essence of scriptural holiness. As the 
law is a transcript of the Divine attributes, the Perfectionist 
will be constantly liable to form erroneous conceptions of 
God, the extent of his righteous requirements, and his in- 
finite hatred of sin. 

12. It is easy to allege with Dr. Clarke, that we are " the 
advocates of sin," " pleading for Baal," &c. So the Univer- 
salist charges the Arminian with being the friend of both 
endless sin and misery ,• and the Pelagian claims to plead for 
the original purity of fallen man ! We plead for the truth, 
by which alone men are sanctified, agreeably to the prayer of 
our Saviour. If Perfectionism be a gross error, it must be 
the patron of crime, not of holiness. 

Scarcely any thing in this whole matter is more surprising, 
than the strange methods by which such writers as Dr. Clarke 
impose upon themselves in battling for their favorite figment. 
Thus, in 1 John 5 : 18, we read, " Whosoever is born of God 
sinneth not." "This," says Dr. Clarke, "is spoken of adult 
Christians," or those whom Mr. Wesley calls " grown Chris- 



226 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIII. 

tians," in distinction from babes in Christ. But if this be 
true, then the inspired John teaches that every one " born 
of God" is a grown Christian, and " sinneth not." In other 
words, every regenerate person is " delivered from all inward 
as well as outward sin !" But this is an obvious error, as 
Arminians will admit. Such is an example of Dr. Clarke's 
pleading for his Baal of Perfectionism. So that with the 
" Biblical Bepertory," we are tempted to believe that such 
Perfectionists are under "a peculiar species of monomania, 
which blinds them to the plain deductions of common sense."* 



LETTER XIII. 

REGENERATION— CHARACTERISTICS AND FRUITS. 

Bev. Sir — The discussions of previous Letters prepare us 
to examine that u great supernatural change, the work of the 
Holy Ghost, the effect of the power of God," j" that " effec- 
tual calling" which the Scriptures represent as of the essence 
of true piety and preparation for heaven. 

VII. The Difficulties of Methodism, upon the Sub- 
ject of Begeneration and the Evidences of a Change 
of Heart. 

That this is a subject of immense importance, is obvious to 
all. Conformity to the Divine pattern is the only method to 
insure either comfort or safety to the soul. This will strike 
conviction to the heart of the secure and careless, encourage 
the feeble Christian, confirm the wavering, and expose the 
hypocrite ; but forsaking this infallible guide, we must inevi- 
tably wander into the most extravagant forms of delusion. 

* For July, 1 842, to which we are indebted for a number of suggestions in 
the latter part of this Letter. 
f Dr. Witherspoon. 



Let. XIII. REGENERATION. 227 

Indeed, upon correctness in this matter are suspended the 
peace, purity, and general welfare of the Christian church. 
How, then, is this subject treated among Methodists ? 

It does not promise well that among their twenty-five "Ar- 
ticles of Keligion," "the new birth," like the doctrine of 
Foreknowledge, finds no place. The only allusion to it at all, 
is in the XVIIth, on Baptism, which is said to be " a sign of 
regeneration or the new birth." But whether this be a 
change of external state from the world to church member- 
ship, or a far deeper and more radical transformation of 
nature, "the Articles" leave us to discover. In two or 
three other places in the "Discipline," in connection with 
the "form of Baptism," it is incidentally mentioned as a 
being "born again," and "born of the Holy Ghost." 

"We naturally judge of the acknowledged importance of this 
great essential of the Christian life, by the prominence it 
holds in the Arminian standards. We must conclude, there- 
fore, that "purgatory," "speaking in unknown tongues," 
"the marriage of ministers," and "Christian men's goods," 
are much more essential in true religion than "the new 
birth" — each of the former having a separate " Article" to 
expound and enforce its importance ! Let us take a closer 
view of the subject. 

1. Of the nature of this change Messrs. Wesley and Clarke 
appear to hold conflicting sentiments. Mr. W. says, " It is a 
great change which God works in the soul, * * * when 
he raises it from the death of sin to the life of righteousness." 
"It is not the same thing with sanctification" — "which is a 
progressive work, carried on in the soul by slow degrees." 
" The new birth is a part of sanctification, not the whole. It is 
the gate of it, the entrance into it."* This is scriptural and 
true. Now hear Dr. Clarke. Commenting on John 3 : 3, 
" Ye must be bom again/' he says: "The new birth here 
spoken of, comprehends not only what is termed justification 
* Sermon on the Now Birth. 



228 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIII. 

or pardon, but also sanctification or holiness" — " the renew- 
ings of the whole soul in righteousness and true holiness/' 
So when speaking of the text, " Whoso is born of God sin- 
neth not," he says it means " adult Christians * * * who 
are cleansed from all sin." In other words, " whoso is born 
of God is cleansed from all sin !" Mr. Wesley, however, as 
before quoted, says " this new birth is the gate or entrance to 
sanctification, which is progressive, and carried on by slow 
degrees." As these statements are diametrically opposed to 
each other, they cannot both be true. 

2. Arminian writers contradict themselves in other aspects 
of this subject. Mr. Wesley says — "All men are by nature 
not only sick, but dead in trespasses and sins, and it is not 
possible for them to do anything well, till God raise them from 
the dead."* But Watson affirms that " God has appointed 
this change (new birth) to be effected in answer to our pray- 
ers ; that acceptable prayer supposes we desire the blessings 
we ask, that we accept of Christ as the appointed medium of 
access to God, * * * and that we exercise faith in the 
promises of God." " All these," he adds, " suppose regen- 
eration to be a good in prospect"^ (not in possession). Was 
there ever a more positive contradiction ! The unregenerate, 
according to Watson, prays, desires the blessings of "the 
new birth," accepts of Christ as the way to the Father, and 
exercises faith in the Divine promises. Yet Mr. Wesley af- 
firms that the unregenerate are dead in sin, and cannot do 
anything well, until they are renewed. Of course it follows, 
that faith, prayer in the name of Christ, &c. being performed 
by the unrenewed, are u not anything well J" How, then, 
can such bad actions lead to the new birth ? 

3. Mr. Watson tells us, "that the preparatory process 
which leads to regeneration, commences with conviction and 
contrition and goes on to a repentant turning to the Lord." 
Dr. Fisk adopts the same view : "The Holy Spirit exerts 

* Sermon on Working out Salvation. + Inst, part 2, chap. 24. 



Let. XIII. REGENEKATION. 229 

this regenerating power on conditions to be first complied 
with." * * * " Repentance and faith are supposed to be 
the gospel conditions — antecedents to regeneration." * * * 
"We must repent in order to be renewed."* But if " faith 
and repentance" may be exercised by an unregenerate person, 
then such a man may be saved without regeneration — for " he 
that believeth shall be saved." And if a person "dead in 
trespasses and sins" may have true faith and repentance, 
why not all the other graces of the Spirit? But Mr. Wesley 
truly says — " Holiness cannot, commence in the soul till that 
change (regeneration) be wrought, * * * till we are 
brought from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto 
God; till we are born of God,"f Which of these contra- 
dictory authorities are viewed as teaching the true Arminian 
gospel, we do not pretend to decide. 

4. Such being the doctrine as taught by Arminians, we 
proceed to its practical developments. Enter their houses of 
worship, attend their camp meetings, class meetings, &c. and 
truly it will demand a discerning eye to discover the feeblest 
resemblance to the humility, meekness, docility, acquaintance 
with Scripture, and knowledge of the human heart and the 
Christian warfare, required by the Saviour and his Apostles. 
Inquire of their converts the evidence of a saving change ; and 
instead of that clear, intelligent disclosure of the operations 
of the Divine Spirit in awaking, convincing, humbling, per- 
suading, and pointing to a Redeemer's blood, you will receive 
a confused statement of "getting religion," amid loud noise 
and confusion of tongues, more like a religious Babel than 
the city of God. Investigate still further the ground of 
their hope, and you will receive, not a statement of Christian 
faith, a simple, consolatory, heart-purifying dependence upon 
the atoning blood and perfect righteousness of Christ, but a 
declaration of bold assurance, of self-confidence, and many 

* Calvinistio Controversy, No. 15. 
f Sermon on the Now Birth. 

20 



230 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIII. 

unequivocal signs of a deceived heart.* Instead of self- 
knowledge, a deep acquaintance with the errors, corruptions, 
and various devices of the human heart, you will hear of 
Christian perfection and a continued willingness to die. In- 
stead of a meek reliance upon the Saviour's merits and the 
Spirit's aid, you will be told that " God is merciful, and if I 
only persevere and keep straight on in the path of duty, God 
will continue to bless me in prayer, and all will be well at 
last." 

The extensive prevalence in that denomination of the most 
mischievous errors respecting the new birth, flows principally 
from the defective and unscriptural representations made by 
their religious teachers. What, for example, is better adapted 
to mislead a serious inquirer, than the following statements 
respecting faith. " Faith necessarily implies an assurance 
that Christ loved me and gave himself for me." Wes. Serm. 
vol. i. p. 209. Again: " Whoever has a sure confidence in 
God, that through the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven, 
Tie is a child of God" Doct. Tracts, p. 300. In the first 
passage, the young or feeble Christian is told, that until he 
has a full assurance of the love of Christ, he remains an 
enemy of God ; and in the second, the formalist and hypocrite 
who have worked themselves into a strong confidence of the 
Divine favor, are assured that they are children of God.f 
Under such instruction with regard to the "fruits of the 
Spirit," we need not be surprised at the grossest mistakes 
respecting his gracious work upon the heart. 

* It is cheerfully admitted that some parts of this picture may be rather 
strongly colored for certain localities, particularly our cities and large 
villages. Notwithstanding, "we speak that we do know." 

f And yet Wesley elsewhere flatly contradicts himself in the above asser- 
tion, and writes in the following scriptural style: "What is saving faith? 
I dare not say that it is only believing confidently my sins aro forgiven mo 
for Christ's sake ; for if I live in sin, that belief is a destructive conceit." 
Doct. Tracts, p. 232. A man of Wesley's loose views and rapid pen, ought 
to have had at least a good memory. 



Let. XIII. REGENERATION. 231 

Nor is the doctrine of grace, as taught by these Arminians, 
at all better adapted to foster aught but a spurious piety. 
Jn reply to the position that " God might justly have passed 
by all men," Wesley says, " Are you sure he might ? I 
cannot find it in the word of God. Therefore I reject it as a 
bold, precarious assertion." "That God might justly, for 
my unfaithfulness to his grace, have given me up long ago, I 
grant; but this supposes me to have had that grace," &c. 
Doct. Tracts, p. 25. Which is the same as to say, that God 
could not justly have punished mankind without providing a 
Saviour, and through him, sufficient grace for them — that 
although it will be just in him to punish for "unfaithfulness 
to his grace," yet to inflict the penalty of his broken law, 
without first providing grace for sinners, would be unjust. In 
other words, that God's infinite grace in giving his only be- 
gotten Son, was not an act of grace at all, but an act of simple 
justice ! Could anything be more suited to cherish pride 
and self-sufficiency in the human heart ? 

What Christian mind but will revolt, and even shudder, 
whilst perusing the following passage from the same volume. 
Speaking of Christian perfection, " We know," says Wesley, 
" that God may, with man's good leave, cut short his work, in 
whatever degree he pleases, and do the usual work of many 
years in a moment." We submit to every candid and intel- 
ligent man, whether the spiritual instruction, of which the 
above is a specimen, may not, a priori, be expected to pro- 
duce, not the fair and glorious lineaments of the image of 
God, but a monstrous abortion of everything like genuine 
piety. Nor will the authorized test of such religion be more 
rational and scriptural than the thing itself. 

From some things which follow in the present Letter, I 
cheerfully acknowledge that there are many honorable ex- 
ceptions, especially among the more intelligent and better 
educated Methodists. We speak of Arminian Methodism 
fully developed, not as she is modified and restrained by the 



232 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMLNIANISM. Let. XIII. 

proximity and social influence of other bodies of Christians, 
or under check from educational and other similar causes. 

7111. The Difficulties of Methodism, with ref- 
erence to the Characteristics of a Genuine Work 
of the Holy Spirit. 

We charge that your system as fully worked out in this 
country, encourages its advocates to place much confidence in 
certain wild and disorderly proceedings which, as they are at 
an infinite remove from the " reasonable service " of true piety, 
so are they expressly condemned by the Wesleys and others, the 
wisest and best of the sect. Reference is here had to those 
scenes of confusion so common in that denomination — jumping, 
falling, screaming, swooning, shouting Glory, glory, glory, clap- 
ping the hands, &c. With these exercises, nature is, in frequent 
instances, completely exhausted; the person lies in a state 
of collapse for many hours, and is said to be highly favored 
with the overpowering influences of the Spirit. Some are 
seen ascending saplings, or whatever object stands most con- 
venient, " climbing up to heaven to see Jesus." Others are 
engaged in laughing, throwing back the body, swinging the 
arms at full sweep, rolling on the ground, &c. To work the 
minds of the people up to such a pitch of frenzy (I can call 
it nothing else), is manifestly a principal object at camp-meet- 
ings, and a main design of all the machinery of enthusiasm 
employed upon such occasions. But let any intelligent reader 
of the Scriptures ask himself, " Where do we find examples 
of all this in the Bible ?" Is it in the case of Saul of Tarsus ? 
But even he was not bereft of his senses, or presence of 
mind ; for he conversed intelligently with Jesus. Nor was 
he converted until three days after meeting with Christ on 
the way to Damascus, when visited by Ananias by Divine 
direction. Besides let Methodism exhibit the appearance of 
the Son of God in the brightness of his glory, a similar mi- 
raculous splendor, the same supernatural voice, and we will 



Let. XIII. REGENERATION. 233 

believe her prostrations to be caused by the same power 
which struck with consternation the persecuting Saul. In- 
deed we may safely challenge the advocates of this system to 
produce a solitary example of conversion, under the preaching 
of Christ and his Apostles, bearing even a distant resemblance 
to the jumping, jerking, falling down, rolling on the ground, 
clapping of hands, loud laughing, and swooning away into a 
senseless or pulseless condition, which are such frequent and 
distinguishing characteristics of Methodism. But perhaps 
the Saviour and his Apostles were not such powerful preachers 
as some of the present day ! We hold steadfastly that all 
true religion begins and is carried on by the Divine Spirit, 
experienced in the heart ; but this is perfectly distinct from 
the natural agitation of the passions, into which it seems the 
object of the Methodist leaders to lash the minds of their 
members. a We can see no Divine power in the mechanical 
groan and the periodical < Amen/ without which they think 
their meetings lifeless. Nor is there any evidence that 
Christ and the Apostles encouraged those tumultuous assem- 
blies in which numbers are at the same moment uttering 
petitions with stentorian voice, and others are going about 
among the people, urging them to cry out till their nerves are 
wrought upon to screeching, swooning, and various hysterical 
affections. When attempts are made to impose this on the 
world for religion, serious Christians will be disposed to weep, 
and the rest of mankind to laugh." 

It is not intended to follow the defenders of these exercises 
in their attempts to enlist the Bible in favor of " confusion." 
A specimen or two of their logic, is all that our limits will 
permit, For example, they quote a number of passages con- 
taining the words " rejoice, shout, shout aloud," &c. ; but 
they forget that an equal number of texts may be adduced, 
exhorting " to keep silence, be still," &c. The strong imagery 
of such passages is best explained by others, such as Ps. 68 : 
8 — il The mountains and the hills shall break forth before 
20* 



234 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIII. 

you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their 
hands." In like manner, when they cite various texts which 
represent persons as "leaping and walking, leaping for joy, 
falling down on the face," &c. they have only shown, what 
no one will question, "that the expressions of submission, 
homage and reverence, always have been, and still are, carried 
to a great degree of extravagance in the eastern countries." 
So also dancing was a common act of devotion under the Old 
Testament dispensation — but did Christ and his Apostles 
ever dance? But perhaps the most singular specimen of 
reasoning from Scripture in defense of these extravagances 
of Methodism, remains to be stated. A writer refers to the 
scenes of Pentecost, when some said of the Apostles, " these 
men are full of new wine," and sagely reasons thus : " Now, 
as drunken men are generally ' wild and disorderly/ there 
must have been something in the proceedings of those referred 
to that induced these beholders to conclude they were drunk!" 
This, we believe, out-Methodizes Methodism ! The Apostles 
acted in such a manner as led the people to think they were 
drunk! Camp and quarterly meetings will not stand in the 
comparison; no person ever suspects their extravagance to 
be the fruit of intoxication. But is it possible this interpreter 
of Holy Writ can discover no other pretext for the charge of 
drunkenness made against the Apostles, than that they be- 
haved as if they were drunk ! Has it entirely escaped his 
notice that they were empowered to speak in languages 
different from their vernacular tongue? And that being 
known as Jews of the common sort, they were supposed to 
be uttering the incoherent ravings of intemperance, by those 
who understood them not ? This solution is at least rather 
more respectful to that sacred impulse by which they were 
directed, than the supposition that the Apostles acted like 
drunken men ! 

The effects produced by the tremendous enginery of con- 
version, employed upon the great occasions, are surprising 



Let. XIII. REGENERATION. 235 

only because they are so small. Preaching, praying, singing, 
loud vociferation, earnest exhortation, many tears — all min- 
gled together and vehemently enforced with violent gesticula- 
tion — great exhaustion of bodily strength and consequent 
derangement of the nervous system — the darkness and gloom 
of the scenery at night, contrasting with the bright reflection 
from numerous gleaming fires — the oft repeated representation 
of the judgment day, as exhibited in the separation of those 
who crowd the altar from those who are left without — these 
and a thousand other devices to strike the imagination, render 
it only a matter of surprise, that among the mixed multitude 
who flock to camp meetings, so few are sufficiently deranged 
in body and bewildered in mind to go through the exercise 
of camp-conversion. Examples indeed are not uncommon of 
persons being caught in this whirlwind of the passions, and 
afterward confessing with shame that they were totally beside 
themselves, and knew not what they were doing.* That such 
measures are at least as well adapted to promote the cause 
of error and fanaticism, as that of truth and righteousness, is 
evident. The Rev. Dr. Miller, in his Letters to Presbyterians, 
states the fact, " that one of the far-famed fanatical Unita- 
rians, called Chrystians, boasted that he had drawn at least 
fifty persons to anxious seats, merely by the influence of his 
own singing " — an agent, as is well known, of vast power in 
Methodism. And there is much reason to fear that a large 
proportion of what is called mourning and conversion in that 
denomination, is to be traced to a cause equally removed 
from f« the truth as it is in Jesus." 

In confirmation of these statements, we quote from some 
essays on " Practical Methodism," originally published in 
the " Christian Advocate," a monthly magazine edited by 
the late venerable Ashbel Green, D. D. These essays are by 
common consent attributed to the pen of the Rev. (now Dr.) 
N. Murray, better known as " Kirwan." Speaking of the 
* A case of this kind came under my own observation. 



236 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIII. 

converts made at camp meetings and similar gatherings, 
he says : " Whilst some have honored their profession by a 
life of godliness, I have known many others to return to 
the beggarly elements of the world. Four or five years since, 
in the town adjoining that in which I live, about one hundred 
were converted, or, to use Methodist language, got religion at 
a camp meeting. At this time scarcely one of them maintains 
a character of piety." " It is not a very uncommon circum- 
stance to hear an individual exclaim, at these meetings, that 
he has ' got religion/ and to see him, before he gets home, 
quite drunk. And a more common circumstance is, to see 
them * brought out with power/ and to hear them pray and 
exhort and shout ; and a few months afterward, to hear them 
say that ' religion is all a hoax/ To these things," adds the 
writer, " I can testify." 

But what say the wisest and best of the fraternity upon 
these subjects? Mr. Fletcher, author of the Checks, thus 
writes to Charles Wesley, under date of November 22d, 
1762 : "I have heard the melancholy news of many of our 
brethren overshooting sober and steady Christianity in Lon- 
don. Oh ! that I could stand in the gap, and by sacrificing 
myself shut this immense abyss of enthusiasm. The corrup- 
tion of the best things is the worst of corruptions. Allowing 
but half of the report is true, the rest shows that spiritual 
pride, presumption, arrogance, stubbornness, party spirit, 
uncharitableness, prophetic mistakes — in short, every sinew 
of enthusiasm is at work in many of that body." The 
following are the words of Charles Wesley upon the same 
subject : " To-day one came, who was pleased to fall into a fit 
for my entertainment. He beat himself heartily. I thought 
it a pity to hinder him ; so instead of singing over him, as 
had often been done, we left him to recover at his leisure. A 
girl, as she began to cry, I ordered to be carried out. Her 
convulsions were so violent as to take away the use of her 
limbs, till they laid her witlwut at the door, when she immedi- 



Let. XIII. REGENERATION. 237 

ately found her legs and walked off. Some very unstill sisters, 
who all took care to stand near me, and tried who could cry 
the loudest, have been as quiet as Iambs, since I have had 
them removed out of my sight. The first night I preached 
there, half my words were lost through their outcries. Last 
night I gave public notice, that whosoever cried so as to 
drown my voice, should be quietly carried to the farthest cor- 
ner of the room. But my porter had no employ the whole 
night/' "Would Charles Wesley have spoken thus, if he had 
considered these things the tokens of a work of God ? 

It is well known that laughter is no uncommon phenome- 
non among the Methodists. Mr. John Wesley describes a 
scene of this sort : " We called at a house * * * where 
we found several rejoicing in God, and several mourning 
after him. While I prayed with them, many crowded into 
the house, some of whom burst into a strange involuntary 
laughter, so that my voice could scarce be heard, and when I 
strove to speak louder, a sudden hoarseness seized me. Then 
the laughter increased. I perceived it was Satan, and re- 
solved to pray on. Immediately the Lord rebuked him, that 
laughter was at an end, and so was my hoarseness." In an- 
other place he says both he and his brother Charles were 
seized with this " loud laughter;" "nor could we possibly re- 
frain, though we were ready to tear ourselves in pieces." * 

Mr. Wesley discovered these workings of Satan also among 
the mountains of Wales. Speaking of the movements in that 
quarter he says : 

" Some give out a verse, which they sing over and over 
again with all their might, thirty or forty times. Meanwhile 
some are violently agitated, and they leap up and down in all 
manner of postures for hours." He adds : " I think there 
needs no great penetration to understand this. They are 
honest, upright men, who really love God in their hearts; 
but they have little experience either of the ways of God oi 
* Works, vol. iv. pp. 35, 39 ; vol. iii. p. 183. 



238 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIII. 

of the devices of Satan. So he (Sata?i) serves himself of then' 
simplicity, in order to wear them out and to bring discredit 
on the work of God." * 

Mr. Wesley, in vol. five of his Journal, says : " Many have 
been awakened, justified and perfected in love ; but even 
while full of love, Satan drives many of them to extrava- 
gance. This appears in several instances: 1. Frequently 
three or four, yea, ten or twelve, pray aloud together. 
2. Some, perhaps many, scream altogether as loud as they 
possibly can ; several drop down as dead, and are as stiff as 
a corpse, but in a while they start up and cry, Glory, glory, 
perhaps twenty times together. Just so (he adds) do the 
French Prophets, and very lately the Jumpers in Wales, bring 
the real work into contempt. 17 

In the third volume of his works, Mr. W. tells of his vis- 
iting one of these French Prophets. " She leaned back in 
her chair and seemed to have strong workings in her breast, 
with deep sighings intermixed. Her head and hands and, by 
turns, every part of her body seemed to be in a kind of con- 
vulsive motion/' "This continued about ten minutes, * * 
then she spoke much, all as in the person of God, of the ful- 
filling of the prophecies, the coming of Christ now at hand, 
and the spread of the gospel over all the earth. Then she 
exhorted us not to be in haste in judging her spirit to be or 
not to be of G-od," &c. " Two or three of our company were 
much affected, and believed she spake by the Spirit of God. 
But this/' adds Mr. W. "was by no means clear to me. 
The motion might be- either hysterical or artificial. And the 
same words any person of a good understanding and well 
versed in Scripture, might have spoken." Afterward he tells 
of " one who did run well, till hindered by some of those who 
were called French Prophets." This led him to preach 
against their delusions. 

Again : Mr. Wesley objects to such bodily exercises on 
* Works, vol. iv. p. 157. 



Let. XIII. KEGENERATION. 239 

the score of decency. In his sermon on "Knowing Christ 
after the flesh/' he remarks : " But some may say, refraining 
from these warm expressions may check the fervor of devo- 
tion. It is very possible it may, such fervor as has passed 
for devotion. It may prevent hud shouting, horrid unnatural 
screaming, repeating the same words twenty or thirty times, 
jumping two or three feet high, throwing about the legs and 
arms of men and women, not only shocking to religion, but to 
common decency! But it will never check, much less pre- 
vent, true scriptural devotion." Serm. vol. iii. p. 266. What 
would Mr. Wesley have said, could he have attended some 
of our Methodist meetings, especially our camp meetings, 
where all these phenomena, accounted by him disorderly, and 
the work of the devil, are confidently taken by his professed 
followers to be indubitable evidence of the power of God? 
On the subject of the indecency of these things, another of 
the Methodist society declares, " I myself have actually wit- 
nessed an unconsciousness of the most indelicate female atti- 
tudes even in the house of God." These facts, Rev. Sir, and 
others of the same or equal authenticity, which we suppress, 
are not reported by the slanderers of Methodism, but by her 
decided friends and advocates. They are now published with 
feelings very different from those of pleasure; but the impe- 
rious demands of truth seem to require the full exposure of 
this corrupt system. 

Speaking of these "bodily emotions," Mr. Wesley says: 
" The essence of religion is quite independent of them." " I 
always ascribe these symptoms to Satan tearing them." 
" Some were buffeted of Satan in an unusual manner, by 
such a spirit of laughter as they could in no wise resist." * 
He also found it necessary to warn all such persons " not to 
judge of the spirit whereby any one spoke, by any dreams, 
visions, or revelations made to their souls, any more than by 
their tears, or any involuntary effects wrought upon their 
• Works, vol. i. p. 560 ; vol. ii. p. 69. 



240 DIFFICULTIES OF AltMINIANISM. Let. XIII. 

bodies."* And in his tract on "Christian Perfection :" 
" Give no place to a heated imagination. Do not easily sup- 
pose dreams, voices, impressions, visions, to be from God. 
They may be from him ; they may be from nature ; they may 
he from the devil." " You are in danger of enthusiasm every 
hour, if you despise or lightly esteem reason, knowledge, or 
human learning; every one of which is an excellent gift of 
God, and may serve the noblest purposes." And let it 
check that fond dependence upon imaginary visions and voices 
from above, on which so many build their hopes of Divine 
acceptance, to know that oy the same test the author of one 
of the worst productions of infidelity has claimed the seal of 
heaven to his profane speculations.f 

In reference to these proofs of Mr. "Wesley's opposition to 
such extravagances, the late Dr. Archibald Alexander wrote 
to the author, that " he (Mr. W.) had patronized, at one period 
of his life, almost every species of disorder in public worship, 
even when in England it was carried to its greatest extremes." 
It is sad to think that he who could write so scriptu rally and 
judiciously on these subjects, should afterward destroy the 
faith and order he once upheld ! 

Let us now look at the testimony of one or two of the lead- 
ing moderns, in relation to these departures from scriptural 
simplicity and sobriety. Adam Clarke's preaching is thus 
described by Lorenzo Dow, in his Journal of July 20, 1806 : 
"The sermon was well delivered in speech, though there 
appeared much deadness at the beginning ) but in his last 
prayer he grew somewhat fervent, until God began to send 
down his power, and there began a move among the people, 
when he seemed to lower, as if to ward off the move and pre- 
vent NOISE." 
• Lorenzo also bears the following testimony : " I saw Adam 
Clarke — he acknowledged to me that he was once in the spirit 

* Works, vol. iii. p. 141. 

f Lord Herbert. See " Leland's View of the Deistical Writers," p. 20. 



Let. XIII. REGENERATION. 241 

of the great revival in Cornwall, &c. ' But now/ said the 
Doctor, 1 1 see letter.' His mind was made up against the 
cainp-ineetings in America as being improper, and the revival 
attending them as a thing accountable upon natural princi- 
ples." With respect to noise in public worship, it seems "the 
English connexion in general are determined to prevent it, as 
appears from their conduct and publication in their magazine." 
These are understood to be the prevailing feeling and prac- 
tice of the Methodists of Great Britain. " Charles Wesley 
and John Fletcher were converted at their own bedside and 
alone : John Wesley while sitting in a church hearing the 
reading of Luther's preface to the Romans : Dr. Coke in his 
pulpit while preaching to others. Both Charles Wesley and 
John Fletcher say they felt no great emotions of joy; and 
Dr. Coke and John Wesley were so tranquil, that none but 
themselves were at the time acquainted with the change." 
Such is the decided testimony of the early fathers and best 
friends of the system against the very abuses which are in 
this country boldly published and propagated as Christianity ; 
as in fact the essence and highest excellence of that religion, 
which is the noblest offspring of him who is " a Grod of order 
and not of confusion." We scarcely need notice the feeble 
attempt which has been made to invalidate this testimony by 
alleging the frequent examples of reformation from gross vice 
in connection with these abuses. The fanatical Unitarians, 
called Chrystians, at their great meetings, have their mourn- 
ers' benches, women pray in public,* old backsliders are 

* The Methodists, as is well known, encourage their women to pray and 
exhort in their public assemblies. The following is Wesley's comment on 
1 Cor. 14 : 34, 35 : "Lot your women keep silence in the church," &c. " It 
is a shame for women to speak in the church." " Robert Barclay indeed 
says, 'Paul here only reproves the inconsiderate and talkative women.' But 
the text says no such thing. It evidently speaks of women in general. 
Again: The Apostle Paul saith to Timothy, 'Let your women learn in si- 
lence with all subjection : Eor I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp 
authority over tho man (which public teaching necessarily implies), but to 

21 



242 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIV. 

reclaimed and drunkards reformed. Do these results stamp 
error and extravagance with the image of truth, or sanction 
the denial of the supreme divinity of him who is " God over 
all blessed for evermore ?" 



LETTEE XIV. 

CAMP MEETINGS AND OTHER PROSELYTING MEASURES. 

Rev. Sir — We are informed in your Discipline, that " God's 
design in raising up the preachers called Methodists in Amer- 
ica, was to reform the continent and spread Scripture holiness 
over these lands." This is quite modest, and if there be any 
one aspect of this great work, which is more than all others 
peculiar and distinctive, it is found in your " labors of love" 
toward the poor benighted Calvinists! Thus says Mr. Ste- 
vens in his history, when Methodism made its first entrance 
at Lynn (Mass.), " it came as a protest against the tenets of 
pre-election, pre-reprobation, final perseverance, infant dam- 
nation, &c." (p. 41.) " No church," he adds, " preaches more 
staunchly against Calvinism, Universalism, &c. ; yet the op- 
posite doctrines are nowhere stated in our * Articles of Reli- 
gion/ " A beautiful set of " Articles" which even a Univer- 
salist may honestly adopt ! 

In proof of these proselyting schemes, the writer on u Practi- 
cal Methodism" (who is commonly understood to be " Kir- 
wan," Dr. Murray) says — "Another characteristic of their 
preaching is the abuse of other denominations. * * * For 
sectarian purposes they pervert and caricature the opinions 
and belief of their Calvinistic brethren. This sin, as far as I 

be in silence. ' " 1 Tim. 2 : 11, 12. Barclay replies, " "We think this not re- 
pugnant to this (our) doctrine." " Not repugnant," retorts Wesley — " I do 
not suffer a woman to teach ? — Then I know not what is." See Letter to a 
Quaker. 



Let. XIV. CAMP MEETINGS. 243 

know, is co-extensive with Methodism. If there are individ- 
ual exceptions, I have not met them. * * * Above all 
things else, the doctrines of grace are their peculiar abhor- 
rence." " They put their own false and denied conclusions 
into our very creed, and proclaim to the world that we re- 
ceive them (these blasphemous sentiments) with a cordial 
credence •" or charge us with " duplicity" in rejecting them ! 
"From doctrines," continues the same writer, "they pass to 
a hireling ministry, * * * whom they call by the chari- 
table names of wolves, hirelings, fleece-seekers, and this I have 
known them do, when their own salaries for preaching were 
much greater than those of the parties assailed." " When a 
person is reported serious, a visit may very soon be expected 
from the circuit-rider. If in the course of conversation he 
discovers any leaning to another fold, the preacher is sure to 
descant upon the character and doctrines of its shepherd and 
sheep ; and that in such a way as to make the impression that 
they are not walking in all the ordinances of God blameless. 
To verify these remarks, I could narrate at least twenty in- 
stances within my own knowledge." Dr. Musgrave of Phila- 
delphia adds — " They often speak as if there were no real 
conversions under the ministry of other denominations, and 
no vital or experimental religion among other sects. "Come 
to our meeting," they say to the members of other churches — 
" Come to our meeting, if you want to get religion !" And 
one of them remonstrated with a relative against sending her 
child to a Presbyterian Sabbath school, as follows — " What 1 
do you want your child to go to hell ?" Such are some of 
their favorite methods of " reforming the continent and spread- 
ing holiness!" Yet it is a familiar fact to those who have 
had the best opportunities of judging, that the multitude of 
spurious conversions under such labors, tends to make the 
impression on many minds, that all vital religion is a sham I 
And where Unitarianism and Universalism have most exten- 
sively prevailed, a large proportion of these deluded errorists 



244 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIV. 

had in most cases "been Methodist converts, and some of 
them even preachers. In Massachusetts, Arminianism rocked 
the cradle of Socinianism in a hundred churches — all of 
which abandoned Calvinism, stopped awhile at the half-way 
house of Arminius, and then became Unitarians.* 

One of the chief instruments in " reforming this continent" 
(i. e. chiefly its Protestant churches) we now propose to con- 
sider with some care : 

IX. The Difficulties of Arminian Methodism, in 

CONNECTION WITH CAMP MEETINGS. 

It is not intended to represent as unlawful the mere act of 
worship in the open air or in the woods. On the contrary, 
we freely admit that there often occur exigencies in the his- 
tory of the church, which render such a practice highly com- 
mendable. Often have the people of Grod, in days gone by, 
been driven to the dens and caves of the earth, that they 
might enjoy the privilege of assembling in some of nature's 
thick 'recesses, to worship the God of the whole earth agree- 
ably to the dictates of reason and conscience. And there are 
doubtless many situations in free and civilized countries, 
where the homage due to the King of heaven may and ought 
to ascend unitedly from the great congregation, even where 
no temple nor altar is dedicated to the service. We may 
even advance a step further : There is something both sub- 
lime and beautiful, in thus employing the green earth and 
the dazzling canopy of heaven as a temple for the praise of 
Him who hath said, "Heaven is my throne, and the earth 
my footstool/' and whom " the heaven, even the heaven of 
heavens, cannot contain." 

Why then do we protest against Methodist camp meetings ? 

1. Because they afford to the mixed multitude who attend 
them, unusual and most abundant advantages for the practice 

* Cooke's Centuries. Mr. C. is an able and energetic Congregationalism 
and a sound Calvinist. 



Let. XIV. CAMP MEETINGS. 245 

of wickedness in many of its foulest forms. It is well known 
that whilst the mass of the steady, orderly, and influential 
men of the community, who give tone to society, and impart 
a healthful direction to the current of its manners and cus- 
toms, take little or no interest in such assemblages, seldom 
attend, and then for a very short time — on the other hand, 
persons of almost every shade of color and character are ad- 
vertised, invited, and expected to attend ; and it is of these 
for the most part that Methodism calculates her gain. It is 
not meant that persons of this description should not have the 
gospel preached to them. That is not the question. "Is the 
camp meeting the best method of bringing them under the 
purifying influence of the gospel V Prove this — and then 
the more you can crowd together on the camp ground the 
better. But is it the wisest way to make such men holy, to 
press them together for several days in succession, and several 
nights, too, where as "iron sharpeneth iron," and fire kin- 
dleth fire, and depravity stimulates to sin, so the social prin- 
ciple and the combined energies of vice excite to emulation in 
deeds of enormous wickedness ? Is it the best way to bring 
together in dangerous combination for many days and nights, 
men and women in mixed multitude, where, it cannot be 
denied, great facilities are presented, to kindle unholy fires in 
the soul, and practice iniquity in many of its vilest shapes ? 
2. For let it be remembered that these meetings are gene- 
rally held in places remote from the habitations of men, fre- 
quently at the foot of a mountain — always in the woods ; that 
the night is the time of general leisure from worldly avoca- 
tions — the time, too, when the excitement at the camp is 
highest — the attention of the managers is then most confined 
to the exclusive scenes of the meeting — and the best oppor- 
tunities are then afforded by the surrounding darkness for 
the "workers of iniquity to hide themselves;" that hundreds 
flock to such places for mirth and recreation,, and many for 
much worse purposes; that independently of the indecent 
21* 



246 DIFFICULTIES OF AILMLNIANISM. Let. XIV. 

postures (spoken of by Wesley and others), and besides the 
malign influence of protracted intercourse, the accommoda- 
tions for lodging at night are such as will commend them- 
selves to no modest person, particularly to no modest female, 
as can easily be shown by a reference to facts. These and 
many other things plainly show that these meetings are not 
sanctioned by good sense or sound morality, much less by that 
religion which forbids the very (i appearance of evil." And 
when we add the awful profanation of the holy Sabbath, oc- 
casioned by the rush of hundreds from every quarter, as to 
the festal scenes of a holiday, or to the merriment and dis- 
sipation of some great fair, well may the serious Christian 
pause and ask, " Can these things be duty in a land like this, 
where every neighborhood has or may soon have a convenient 
house of worship, at which, by traveling a short distance, all 
may receive instruction in the mysteries of redeeming love f" 
Surely it cannot be a work of necessity in any sense, to mingle 
with the worship of the Lord of glory, anything which bears 
so strong a resemblance to the works of darkness. If indeed 
the system were so amended, that camp meetings should 
never extend to the Sabbath, many of the above objections 
would be removed.* 

If camp meetings were abandoned, Methodism would lose 
one chief element of her power, especially of her proselyting 

* Says the Boston Puritan : " The worst evil is the extensive and reckless 
desecration of the Sabbath. On that day far more than others, the whole 
community is in motion. Loaded vehicles, cracking whips, foaming steeds 
and humming wheels are the order of the day. It is the great holiday of all 
the young, gay and thoughtless of both sexes, who from the distance of 
twenty miles or more thus drive in throngs to the holy fair. Of the many 
young people of my acquaintance who have frequented the camp ground on 
the Sabbath, I could rarely learn that any of them heard either a sermon or 
a prayer. They strolled about with a view to amuse themselves and grat- 
ify curiosity merely; and I have no hesitation in saying, that on camp 
meeting Sabbaths they have seen more evil than during all the rest of the 
year ; and that many of them have at such times learned more wickedness 
than they had ever known elsewhere." 



Let. XIV. CAMP MEETINGS. 247 

power. "They usually have on hand," remarks Br. Mus- 
grave, "some extraordinary preacher/' or "wonderful orator/' 
or " great revivalist" — who is the most eloquent, powerful and 
successful preacher that has ever appeared ! Their members 
flock from all parts of city and country, and everywhere the 
news is circulated from pulpit and class meeting. Many, not 
Methodists, go without suspecting that the object is, if pos- 
sible, to proselyte them to Methodism." " Now is the time to 
give Calvinism the most deadly thrusts I" " Presbyterians 
teach doctrines which represent God as more false, cruel and 

unjust than ! the non-elect are tempted of God and 

compelled to sin as a pretense to damn them ! Children not a 
span long, are in hell suffering the torments of unquenchable 
fire !" Thus the design "to reform the continent" and " spread 
scriptural holiness/' goes forward with tremendous power ! ! 

"But what," adds the writer supposed to be "Kirwan," 
"is the greatest evil of these strange measures, is their 
effect in begetting improper notions of Divine truth. Among 
the Methodists there is very much religious irreverence 
arising no doubt from their improper views of the Divine 
character. Hence their boisterous and unmeaning prayers — 
the great familiarity with which they treat the Most High — 
their crude notions of 'getting religion/ and of sinless 
perfection. They seem to suppose that religion can be 
obtained and lost at any time — that it consists in a boisterous 
agitation of the passions — that other means than prayer and 
the avoidance of temptation, are to be employed in overcom- 
ing the devil — and that reverence and order in religious wor- 
ship are the characteristics of coldness and formality. A man 
of my acquaintance a few years since, cried out, in an evening 
meeting among the Methodists — ' Brethren, I have got the 
devil, and will not let him go till I kill him.' He contin- 
ued fisting his Satanic majesty against the wall for half an 
hour, whilst the cries of ' Amen' and ' Glory to God' were 
rising all around him." 



248 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIV 

But what impression do these and similar traits of the 
system make upon the world? "A man of intelligence is 
prompted by curiosity to attend one of the boisterous camp 
meetings. He goes from tent to tent, from one praying cir- 
cle to another. He witnesses the fervid enthusiasm of the 
preachers, which acts upon the mass like a whirlwind upon 
the ocean. He sees some falling into fits — others exhausted 
with shouting — others prostrate on the earth and crying out, 
1 it made no matter to them whether they went to heaven 
head or heels foremost' — a scene actually witnessed. He 
hears twenty or thirty praying at once, and the less fluent 
brothers and sisters shouting 'Amen.' He hears one ex- 
claim, ' I see the Saviour — there he is ;' and another, i I see 
heaven open and God preparing to descend to us ;' and an- 
other crying out, ' Pray on, brothers and sisters — the bless- 
ing will soon come/ He witnesses little else but irreverence 
before Him who hath said, ' The Lord is in his holy temple ; 
let all the earth keep silence before him.' If such scenes are 
not well calculated to make the impression that religion is 
only fitted for the vulgar — that it is all a matter of blind su- 
perstition, I know not what scenes are." That the foregoing 
statements do not exceed or exaggerate the simple truth, is 
proved by Dr. Ashbel G-reen, who affirms that they are in 
" exact accordance with the reports which were made to him 
from various quarters." The facts were such as " had either 
passed under the observation of the reporters, or were nar- 
rated by creditable and pious individuals." 

Again, remarks the writer on "Practical Methodism:" 
u Another of their evil effects upon the church arises from 
the little value they set upon Christian instruction in any of 
its departments. Their system is formed mainly with refer- 
ence to the passions. Their preaching, praying, classes, 
camp meetings and love feasts, are all conducted so as to 
affect the passions. As respects instruction, a moral famine 
pervades every thing they do. This might be expected from 



Let. XIV. CAMP MEETINGS. 249 

the character of a large majority of their clergy. A person 
professes conversion to-day, and is admitted to the communion 
to-morrow ; and thus the church is filled with ignorant mem- 
bers ; ignorant of the Bible, and in a very lamentable degree 
of the plan of salvation. And their example is exerting a 
deleterious influence upon other portions of the church. 
Other denominations, to prevent their adherents from be- 
coming Methodists, ' where tliey can get religion so easily,' 
admit them to membership too hastily." 

Wesley himself asserts : " Were I to preach three years 
together in one place, both the people and myself would grow 
as dead as stones." We may well suspect the piety that 
would die under a three years' trial of this kind. Whatever 
benefits accrue among the Methodists from "the constant 
change of preachers," it is certain that it lays a strong temp- 
tation in the way of the preacher to neglect the improvement 
of his mind, after he has gone through a sufficiently extensive 
course of sermons, which he is at liberty to preach at every 
successive change of his circuit. The people, too, will be fed 
with milk, milk, milk. Any thing like systematic discussion 
of the great truths of the Scriptures in their connected order, 
is almost entirely out of the question. Abundant facts tes- 
tify to the truth of these remarks. 

While therefore we cheerfully concede to the Methodists 
the credit which is due them for conveying a measure of 
religious and moral instruction to a large class of mankind, 
including many of the most depraved and destitute, we cannot 
but fear that the foregoing errors and disorders are exerting 
an influence upon society which is any thing but salutary. 
Religion will generally be estimated by the character and 
conduct of her professed followers. And when the worship 
of the G-od of the whole earth, the infinitely perfect Spirit, 
the only object of religious homage, is so widely at variance 
with the plainest dictates of propriety ; when instead of that 
"reasonable service" which he requires, extravagance and 



250 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIV. 

confusion prevail ; when long and noisy vociferation is sub- 
stituted for instruction in religious truth; when the object is 
rather to rouse the animal sensibilities than awaken the con- 
science, enlighten the understanding and humble the heart ; 
when those in numerous instances are appointed to teach 
who ought first to learn,* and the most incongruous state- 
ments are gravely announced as the sober conclusions of rea- 
son and truth; when the results of natural causes, terror, 
nervous irritability, bodily exhaustion, &c. are boldly pro- 
nounced to be essentials in that " holiness without which no 
man shall see the Lord ;" when all this (and there is much 
more of the same character) is witnessed by men of even 
ordinary discernment, nothing is more easy and natural than 
to transfer their feelings of disgust from those who practice 
these abuses of religion, to religion herself. " Where the 
Methodist religion," says the writer of " Practical Method- 
ism," "has been for a time prevalent, unchecked by the 
presence of other denominations, you find the talented and 
influential members of society opposed not only to the Meth- 
odists, but to every thing in the form of godliness." " The 
region in which I live," continues the same writer, "bears a 
decided testimony to the truth of this fact. Methodism was 
once dominant. It carried nearly every thing before it ; and 
now the intelligent and influential are generally infidels, or 
something as bad, and are rarely ever seen within the walls 
of a church. Methodism is on the wane. The people are 
becoming tired of it; and that cold chill, the sure precursor 
of spiritual death, is pervading the whole community." "If 
this be religion," exclaimed one who was leaving the scenes 
of a camp ground, " Heaven preserve me from it." As the 

* The example of the disciples, " a few illiterate fishermen," is some- 
times adduced in favor of an unlearned ministry. But it seems to bo 
overlooked that those fishermen had received, besides miraculous powers, 
and the inspiration of the Most Holy, three full years of instruction from 
the lips of "the Teacher sent from God;" the very best of all training 
for the ministry. 



Let. XIV. CAMP MEETINGS. 251 

scandalous conduct of the Romish clergy has left an eternal 
stain and stigma upon the very name of priest, so have we 
reason to fear, will much that Methodism calls religion, preju- 
dice the minds and steel the hearts of thousands against the 
pure and heavenly doctrines of Divine Revelation. 

" But have not Presbyterians sometimes held camp meet- 
ings?" Yes! We do not decide upon their expediency or 
inexpediency in our new settlements, and when properly con- 
ducted. The foregoing discussion has reference mainly to the 
practice of holding these meetings in the vicinity of cities and 
large villages, in neighborhoods long settled and furnished 
with many churches and other conveniences for the orderly 
worship of G-od. Their propriety among a sparse population, 
destitute of suitable houses of worship, would depend in a 
great measure upon their management. But we are persuad- 
ed there can be no sufficient plea for such assemblages under 
other circumstances than such as we have mentioned. This 
view of the subject will also show the propriety of the remarks 
we have made upon the method of lodging at night. The 
" log cabins" of the Far West are designed to be only a tem- 
porary arrangement, to yield with all possible speed to better 
accommodations. Necessity in such cases knows no law. 
But we should all feel the indelicacy, not to say indecency, 
of voluntarily forsaking separate chambers, to huddle male 
and female into the same apartment j and all from the fervor 
of our zeal for religion and the salvation of souls ! Paul was 
himself a " tentmaker." And though they had no churches 
to assemble in, we hear of his preaching on " Mars Hill," in 
an " upper chamber/' in his own " hired room," and in an 
oratory by the river side ; but never do we read of his em- 
ploying his mechanical skill to furnish a camp ground, nor 
that he ever sanctioned a similar practice. 



252 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XV. 

LETTEE XY. 

ABUSES IN ADMINISTERING THE SACRAMENTS. 

Rev. Sir — Christians generally admit Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper to be Divine institutions, and therefore of im- 
mense value and importance in every system which seeks "the 
spreading of scriptural knowledge." We now proceed to exam- 
ine how this matter is managed in Arminian Methodism. 

X. Difficulties with regard to Religious Ordi- 
nances. 

1. Upon this subject, the theory and practice of Methodism 
seem very well to agree. What are we to think of " Articles 
and Discipline," which, after stating that the baptism of 
children is to be retained in the church, contain not one vjord 
respecting the character of the parents ; and which of course 
require nothing more, in order to the baptism of their chil- 
dren, from the most profane and vicious, than from the most 
moral and religious ? The whole subject is left as though it 
were a matter of the utmost indifference. No obligations of 
any kind are prescribed ; no inquiry of knowledge or decent 
deportment; no demand of future obedience to the Divine 
precepts. The great point seems to be, to get children bap- 
tized, and as many as possible by the Methodist church, with 
which the parents are thus brought into a kind of connection 
and membership. On the principle that "coming to us" is 
to " get religion," with almost as great certainty as to unite 
with others is to be destitute of it, this method of attaching 
persons of every description to the meeting is adopted without 
scruple ; and doubtless the end will fully justify the means. 
In this way, too, the hearts of the unwary are deceived by a 
show of great liberality; and an excellent opportunity fur- 
nished to declaim against narrow-minded Presbyterians, who 
believe in the everlasting perdition of helpless infants. We 



Let. XV. SACRAMENTAL ABUSES. 253 

admit that the preachers suppose their practice to be consist- 
ent with the order of Christ's house ; but this will not change 
the essential nature of truth, nor make that right which is 
wrong, even though, like Saul of Tarsus when persecuting 
the church, they think they are doing God service. 

In the last edition of the " Discipline " (1856), it is said 
that "all children, by virtue of the unconditional benefits of 
the atonement, are members of the kingdom of God, and 
therefore graciously entitled to baptism" — of course without 
the slightest reference to the character of the parents ) the 
title of the child of infidels being equal to that of the child 
of believers ! It is added, " that as infant baptism contem- 
plates a course of religious instruction, it is expected of all 
parents or guardians, * * * that they use all diligence in 
bringing them up in conformity to the word of God, and 
they should be solemnly admonished and exhorted to faithful- 
ness therein." " It is expected " — who expects such duties 
to be performed by infidel parents ! Who expects such dili- 
gence from drunkards, profane swearers and others of that 
sort ! Yet, as their children are " entitled to baptism," of 
course the preacher dare not refuse ! What an idea, to expect 
" a course of religious instruction " to be given in " the word 
of God," from infidels and all sorts of vile characters ! 

Circumcision (the Old Testament baptism) was never ap- 
plied to any but the children of Abraham, and to parents 
and children who became proselytes to Judaism. Yet that 
was "the seal of the righteousness of faith," as much as 
baptism. Of whose faith ? Not surely of the "faith" of the 
infant of eight days old, but of the parent who, in the exercise 
of " faith," gave away the child to the expected Saviour, and 
came under the obligations implied in such a gift, to bring it 
up in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord." " Circum- 
cision," says Wesley, " being abolished, and baptism coming 
in the room of it, baptism should be applied to all those who 
have any interest in the covenant — this seems to manifest 
22 



254 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XV. 

the right of the children of Christians to these blessings, or 
that they have an interest in this covenant/'* Doct. Tracts, 
p. 2G7. Hence also we find that when the Apostles received 
into church fellowship the parents, it is generally added they 
baptized their household — but we never read of their bap- 
tizing the household or the children of any who did not 
profess faith in Christ. The reason was precisely the same 
for refusing baptism to the offspring of unbelievers, as for 
denying circumcision to those who were not Jews — "The seal 
of the righteousness of faith " (applied in either form,) im- 
plied the existence of faith — the seal of the covenant, that 
the covenant had been entered into. Where, therefore, there 
is no " faith" in exercise, and no covenant embraced and 
agreed to, to apply the seal of the covenat, is to seal a blank. 
It is plain, therefore, from the nature of the ordinance, from 
the nature of the covenant (of which it is the seal), as well 
as from the character and extent of its obligations, that in 
the baptism of the infants of the vicious and profane, "who 
are strangers to the covenants of promise," the great seal of 
High Heaven, the solemn ratification of G-od's covenant, is 
appended to a nullity, or what is worse, to an untruth. 
Something indeed is said about an " unconditional charter," 
entitling all infants to the blessings of the covenant, without 
respect to their parentage, and securing to them, uncondi- 
tionally, the right of baptism. But why were the blessings 
of this " unconditional charter" limited, in the case of the 
Jews ? Why did it not secure the right of circumcision to 
the infants of G-entiles ? And why was it restricted to those 
who were united to the professing people of G-od, either by 

* Watson takes the same view. "The question is, whether the infant 
children of believing parents are entitled to be made parties to the covenant 
of grace by the act of their parents ?" " Tho apostolic practice was to bap- 
tize the houses (households) of them that believed" " On the supposition 
that baptism was administered to the children of the parents who thus be- 
lieved, at the same time as themselves and in consequence op their 
believing, it may be asked," &g. Vol. ii. pp. 630, 639. 



Let. XV. SACRAMENTAL ABUSES. 255 

birth or proselytisin ? Dr. Clarke on Acts 16 : 32, tells us, 
" the Jewish practice was invariably to receive the heathen 
children with (not without) their proselyted parents/' And 
Wesley informs us that " in the Christian church, in its earli- 
est ages, and I think from the Apostles' time, it has been the 
custom to baptize the infant children of professed Christians." 
Doct. Tracts, p. 275. The father of Methodism, then, no 
less than the word of G-od and the example of the Apostles, 
condemns the practice of administering baptism to the infant 
children of those who give no scriptural evidence of piety. 
Man cannot search the heart, but reason may apply the prin- 
ciples of Holy Writ, by which we are to " try the spirits " and 
test the character and fitness of those who claim for them- 
selves or their offspring, the il sign and seal " of the covenant 
of grace. To neglect this, is to declare it to be a matter of 
no importance that institutions of Divine authority should be 
administered in " truth and righteousness." " The ordinance 
is inseparably connected with the incumbent duty of ( bringing 
up the children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.' If 
this connection is lost sight of — if it is not contemplated at 
the time, and is practically disregarded afterward, the ordi- 
nance becomes nothing better than a useless ceremony and an 
idle and profane mockery of its Divine author."* 

2. Nor is the practice with regard to the other sacrament 

* This extract is from the pen of the distinguished Dr. Wardlaw, of Glas- 
gow. The Dr. adds : " The profit to the child must be through the medium 
of the parent ; and it has long appeared to me, that it is to the parent, rather 
than to the child, that infant baptism is in the *first instance to be reckoned a 
privilege." " That multitudes who have their children baptized, never think 
of the ordinance in any such light, and are quite regardless of the obligations 
which, I will not say it imposes, but which it implies and brings to mind, is a 
melancholy truth. And I would earnestly admonish those parents of the 
guilt they are contracting by their solemn mockery of Heaven, in the careless 
profanation of a Divine institution." President Edwards, nearly a century 
ago, abundantly insisted that " this way of proceeding tends to establish the 
stupidity and irreligion of children, as well as the negligence of parents." 
Works, vol. iv. p. 427. 



256 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANI3M. Let. XV. 

of Christ's house at all more agreeable to reason and Scrip- 
ture. The Book of Discipline prescribes examination* for 
admission to the Lord's Supper, but as it says nothing 
about the topics, every preacher is left to do just what seem- 
eth right in his own eyes. Hence the very superficial 
investigation of faith and practice at camp meetings, and the 
common usage of receiving an appearance of tenderness as 
sufficient recommendation, without inquiry whether the per- 
son has heen baptized, or whether his character and habits 
are not scandalous, and will not render him a disgrace to the 
ordinance, and a just object of contempt to the infidel and 
scoffer. A member of my church (from whose lips I had the 
fact), whilst traveling through one of the western counties of 
Pennsylvania, was present at a quarterly meeting when the 
communion was administered. When the services were nearly 
completed, a rough, uncouth person pressed forward toward 
the altar and demanded the elements, saying, " I came here 
to get religion, and like to forgot it." After some consulta- 
tion among the preachers, the bread and wine were presented 
to him. This, we readily admit, is an extreme, though by 
no means a solitary case. But where in the authorized 
Book of Discipline and standard of doctrine, will you find 
one syllable which condemns such scandalous proceedings. 
The volume therefore which contains the confession of faith 
and forms of worship adopted by Methodists, tacitly gives 
its consent and approbation to this gross outrage upon de- 
cency. It will be readily admitted that in the purest 
churches and under the most cautious discipline, unworthy 
persons may intrude into the sacraments ; but this furnishes 
no apology for unforbidden practices, which reflect dishonor 
upon the very name of religion. 

In reply to these statements it has been said, "that an 
individual who had previously been very wicked might, on 

* The edition of 1856 has dropped this item requiring examination, so that 
not even that is now requirod. 



Let. XV. SACRAMENTAL ABUSES. 257 

the occasion of a camp meeting, become truly penitent and 
intend to lead a new life ; and it is better to be imposed upon 
than to stand in the way of one sincere soul in fulfilling the 
command of Christ." In other words, the Apostle says, "Let 
a man examine himself, and so let him eat " — the preache 
replies, "Let him become truly penitent, and intend to leac 
a new life ; and leave the examination to a more convenient 
season!" The Apostle says, " He that eateth and drinketh 
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, and 
is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, not discerning 
the Lord's body" — "it is better for us to be imposed 
upon," replies the preacher, "and that sinners should risk 
these awful consequences, than that we should stand in the 
way of one sincere soul in fulfilling the command of Christ." 
It cannot be proved that Christ ever commanded any man to 
rush from the boisterous excitemeat of the camp ground, 
without time for self-recollection and self-examination, to the 
tender and most solemn exercises of the communion. There 
is no example of any such practice in the Scriptures; and 
the language of Paul plainly implies the direct contrary. 
Wesley, however, asserts that our Lord commanded the very 
men who were unconverted (his disciples), who (in the full 
sense of the word) were not believers, " to do this in remem- 
brance of him I" He adduces this to show " the falsehood 
of the assertion that none but the converted, those who are 
believers in the full sense, ought to communicate. 

3. A third head of abuses is the practice of kneeling in 
the act of communion, and much of the language employed 
in administering the ordinance. The Saviour and his disci- 
ples celebrated the first supper (" the Lord's Supper," as Paul 
calls it, 1 Cor. 11 : 20) in the common table posture. " Now 
when the even was come," says the evangelist Matthew, " he 
sat down with the twelve." "And as they were eating, 
Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave to 
the disciples, and said : Take, eat; this is my body." So also 
22* 



258 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XV. 

Luke (22:14), "He sat down," &c. And to render the 
custom of the primitive church still more evident, Paul char- 
acterizes the ordinance as " the Lord's table." 1 Cor. 10 : 
21. It is admitted that they sat in a leaning attitude, as 
was then usual, but this does not in the least abate the force 
of the testimony. Now if the blessed Redeemer has set us 
the example in adopting this posture, even in instituting the 
sacrament, by what authority do men venture to change what 
he has ordained ? If Christ and his disciples sat down, who 
shall authorize a different attitude ? 

Further : The practice of kneeling in receiving the sacra- 
mental elements, originated in superstition. Pope Honorius 
the Second is believed to have been the first that ordained 
this posture ; and it grew out of the doctrine of Transubstan- 
tiation and the sacrifice of the mass, which had some time 
previously received the infallible sanction of Pope Innocent 
the Third. u The most ardent friends of kneeling," says Dr. 
Miller, " do not pretend to find any example of this posture 
in the whole history of the church, prior to the thirteenth 
century. And accordingly in the Greek church, which sepa- 
rated from the Latin before the doctrine of Transubstantiation 
arose, kneeling at the communion is unknown." It must be 
regarded therefore, as a part of that " will worship and vol- 
untary humility," which characterize the corruptions of the 
Romish church. Besides, the ordinance is a feast — a feast 
of confidence, fellowship, joy and thanksgiving; and there is 
something utterly incongruous in such a posture in such 
circumstances. "In what nation is it thought suitable to 
kneel at banquets ? Where do men eat and drink upon their 
knees?" It is admitted that it is not done superstitiously 
among Protestants; but it is undoubtedly adapted to nourish 
error and superstition, and is liable to great and continual 
misapprehension by the weak and ignorant. And if the door 
be thrown open — if the precedent be set of improving upon 
Divine institutions, the way is clear to admit all the worst 
abominations of the church of Rome. 



Let. XV. SACRAMENTAL ABUSES. 259 

4. "The prayer of consecration/' which the elder is re- 
quired to say, is another " dead fly/' emitting by no means a 
sweet savor. Our " Lord Jesus took bread and blessed it," 
or "gave thanks" as it is recorded by Paul, and as many of 
the Greek copies of Matthew's Gospel have it. Why will 
men venture to change the language of Him who instituted 
this ordinance ? And our objections are still stronger when 
we find the undue importance which is attached to this 
"prayer of consecration." We are particularly informed that 
"if the consecrated bread and wine be all spent, the elder 
may consecrate more by repeating the prayer of consecration !" 
And again, that " if the elder be straitened for time, he may 
omit any part of the service, EXCEPT THE PRAYER OF CONSE- 
CRATION." But where is all this found in the New Testa- 
ment ? Where has the Saviour intimated that if the elder 
have not laid his hands upon a sufficient quantity of bread 
and wine, when he first "gives thanks" (or offers u the 
prayer of consecration"), he must "lay his hands" upon 
more, and "give thanks" over again !* " Who hath required 
this at your hands V Does it not savor strongly of the mass, 
to give such prominence to a form prescribed by man ? " Ex- 
cept the prayer of consecration /" The Holy Mother Church 
has it, "except all be said and done by a regularly ordained 
priest in communion with the See of Rome," empowered to 
consecrate the bread or wafer into "the body, blood, soul and 
divinity" of Christ ! 

Finally: The unscriptural character of this part of the 
Methodist Discipline is also manifest in the act of distribu- 
tion. Paul tells us that he "received of the Lord," that the 
Lord Jesus said, "Take, eat — this is my body," &c. "This 
cup is the New Testament in my blood," &c. (1 Cor. 11 : 24, 
25.) And with a few unimportant variations, the same is 

* It is remarkable that although our Saviour is said to have " given 
thanks," just before he distributed the elements, " the prayer of consecra- 
tion" contains not one syllable properly of the nature of thanksgiving ! 



260 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XV. 

the record by Matthew and Luke. But here in the " Discip- 
line/' the form used by the Saviour of men, and specially re- 
vealed to the Apostle Paul, is crowded into the " prayer of 
consecration" and instead thereof, the elder is to say the 
following: "The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was 
given for thee, preserve thy soul and body unto everlasting 
life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for 
thee, and feed on him by faith with thanksgiving." And a 
similar form is used when he distributes the wine, only with 
the necessary adaptation to the change of the elements. But 
it is obvious that this, to say the least, is a needless and un- 
authorized departure from Christ's own teaching and example. 
If the Saviour himself selected and used a certain form of 
words, who will venture to say it is not most agreeable to his 
will ? Can it be right to substitute a different one ? And 
especially is this inquiry important, when the substituted form 
employs a phraseology with regard to the " body and blood" 
of the Saviour, which has no parallel in the Scriptures, but is 
strongly tinctured with idolatry. " The body of our Lord, 
&c. preserve thy soul and body unto everlasting life." The 
Bornanist could consistently use such a prayer, because he 
believes that the bread or wafer is " the body, soul and divin- 
ity" of the Saviour. But the sober Christian will say — "Let 
me employ as nearly as possible the gracious words which 
proceeded from the lips of Him who spake as never man 
spake, and who has a right to say what shall be the form of 
administering the most solemn ordinance of his own house." 
It may perhaps be thought that a close adherence to the 
inspired pattern in administering the sacraments, is not a 
matter of very much importance. But if Christ and his 
Apostles have left on record a certain form, why not use it ? 
Can we improve upon it 1 Would not every Christian revolt, 
if any uninspired man should take the liberty of changing the 
baptismal form? Yet why should the one phraseology be 
esteemed more sacred than the other ? Why would it not be 



Let. XVI. METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 261 

lawful to say — "I baptize thee in the name of the Trinity?" 
Yet this change would not be so great as has been usual in 
the form of the other sacrament. The form of baptism is but 
once recorded (Matt. 28:19), yet we believe there is almost 
entire uniformity with respect to it, in the Christian world. 
Whence the unwarranted liberty taken with the other form ! 
The writer is also aware that in this Letter, and perhaps in 
some others, he crosses the path of one or two denominations 
of Christians with whom he wishes to have no controversy, 
and toward whom he entertains feelings of fraternal regard. 
If he has occasionally touched the views and usages of other 
sects, while he asks for a candid perusal of what he may 
write, he can only express his regret at the necessity which 
has been laid upon him, of encroaching to some small extent 
upon neutral territory. 



LETTER XYI. 

METHODIST EPISCOPACY— EXCLUSION OF LAYMEN. 

Rev. Sir — In the progress of this investigation we come 
now to the subject of Church Government, as administered 
in Arminian Methodism. 

XI. Difficulties in regard to her Form of Govern- 
ment — it is Unscriptural, Anti-Republican, Unjust 
and Tyrannical. 

On page 126 of " the Discipline," it is said that u the 
Holy Spirit has appointed divers orders of ministers in his 
church." And elsewhere in the same volume, " forms of 
consecration and ordination" are given for bishops, elders, 
and deacons, respectively. In the appendix to Buck's Theo- 
logical Dictionary, written by Dr. Bangs, it is said that in 
Methodism " three orders of ministers are recognized, and 
the duties peculiar to each are clearly denned." Dr. Clarke, 



262 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVI. 

in commenting on 1 Tim. chap. 3, v. 1, states that " Episco- 
pacy in the church of God is of Divine appointment) and 
should be maintained and respected. Under God there 
should be supreme governors in the church as well as in the 
state. The state has its monarch : the church has its bishop." 
" The office of a bishop is from God." Note, Acts 20 : 28. 

Now that these "divers orders" are the invention of men, 
and not the appointment of God, has been often and most 
abundantly proved. For, 

1. There is no scriptural evidence whatever that the office 
of deacon embraced the duty either of teaching or riding in 
the church. In support of this position, we refer to the ori- 
ginal appointment as recorded in the 6th chapter of Acts, 
where the object is distinctly declared to be, not the estab- 
lishment of another order of ministers or teachers, but of a 
class of men whose business it should be to " serve tables/' or 
attend to the secular affairs of the church; "but we," say the 
Apostles, "will give ourselves to prayer and to the ministry 
of the word." That some of those who were first appointed 
deacons, did afterward preach the gospel, and act as evangel- 
ists, is not denied; but there is no evidence whatever that 
they were either ministers or evangelists, in consequence of 
their appointment to " serve tables." "It is not reason," say 
the Apostles, " that we should leave the word of God and 
serve tables." 

Dr. Bangs, in his " Vindication of Methodist Episcopacy," 
p. 14, derives an argument from 1 Tim. 3 : 8, in support of 
the ministerial character of deacons : " Likewise must the 
deacons be grave" — but just three verses farther on the 
Apostle adds, "even so must their wives be grave." Were 
the deacons' wives ministers of the gospel ? And when Paul 
subjoins two verses farther down, "For they that use the of 
fee of deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and 
great boldness in the faith" Dr. Clarke well expresses the 
meaning — -"they are here said to purchase to themselves a 



Let. XVI. METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 263 

good degree ; for instead of having to minister to the bodies 
and bodily wants of the poor, the faithful deacons were raised 
to minister in holy things: and instead of ministering the 
bread that per isheth, they were raised to minister the bread of 
life to immortal souls." This no doubt was often exemplified 
when persons exercising the office of deacon diligently and 
faithfully, were elevated to the higher office of ministers of 
the everlasting gospel. "It is evident," says Dr. Scott, an 
Episcopalian, " that they were appointed to take care of the 
property of the church, and not to the pastoral office." "It 
seems undeniable that they were appointed solely to take care 
of the temporal concerns of the church ; and not, as deacons, 
to preach, or to administer sacred ordinances." " It appears 
to me very likely," continues Dr. Scott, "that both at this 
and future periods, many who were appointed deacons in the 
first instance, afterward became evangelists or pastors; and 
when they were fully employed, other deacons were ap- 
pointed." Com. on Acts 6:2-6. Since then not a particle 
of evidence can be gathered from the New Testament, that 
the first deacons were ministers of the gospel at all, we need 
not trouble ourselves to disprove the other feature of the 
system, which places them in an " order" inferior to elders 
and bishops.* It is a subject of much curiosity with some 
persons, to have a distinct reference made to the identical 
passage or passages of Scripture, upon which the preachers of 
Methodism rely to establish this difference of " order" among 
the ministers of Christ. Show us the chapter and verse, and 
then we will believe that regularly ordained ministers of the 

* The "Discipline" (p. 146) authorizes the deacon "to baptize;" but it 
appears that one ordination by " the laying on of the hands of a bishop," is 
not sufficient to qualify for administering the othor sacrament. But where 
has the Master said that some of his servants are authorized to officiate in 
the one ordinance, and not qualified for the other ? A distinction of this 
kind, in the lawful administration of the sacraments, is very well in Popery, 
with her "blasphemous fable" of "the body, soul and divinity;" but is un- 
worthy of any church emancipated from her thraldom. 



264 DIFFICULTIES OF AltMIXIANISM. Let. XVI. 

gospel, who are called deacons, having received the laying on 
of hands but once, are quite inferior to another set of regu- 
larly ordained ministers who are called elders, having received 
the laying on of hands more than once. If the distinction of 
" order" consists in this, that two ordinations are better than 
one, then three, four and five, by the same reasoning, would 
be better still; and thus may the humble deacon of Method- 
ism gradually ascend in the numerical scale, until he shall 
seat himself in the chair of St. Peter, and nobody knows how 
far above Pontifex Maximus himself.* 

2. With regard to the "orders" of bishop and elder, these 
names are uniformly used in the New Testament as converti- 
ble terms, the one or the other being employed just as conve- 
nient to the writer. And what is much more conclusive, the 
very same character and powers are ascribed to elders as to 
bishops, thus proving that they are the same, not different 
orders of ministers. In proof of these positions we cite Acts 
20:17-28. "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and 
called the elders of the church." " Take heed to yourselves 
and to all the flock over which the Holy Grhost hath made 
you overseers" (or bishops). The very same persons are 
denominated by the inspired Apostle, bishops and elders, and 
that within a few sentences. Philip. 1:1. " The bishops 
and deacons" of Philippi are addressed. Titus 1 : 5, 7. "For 
this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order 
the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city — 
for a bishop must be blameless," &c. ; where, besides the 
manifest fact that Paul's elders were the same with Paul's 

* A few illustrations of the practice in the primitive church may not be 
out of place. Origen tells us — " The deacons were appointed to preside 
over the tables of the church, as we are taught in the Acts of the Apostles." 
Ambrose in the fourth century says — " The deacons ordinarily were not au- 
thorized to preach." Jerome calls the deacon, "a minister of tables and 
widows." And the sixth general Council of Constantinople decided that 
" the scriptural deacons were no other than overseers of the poor, and that 
such was the opinion of the ancient fathers." — (Dr. Miller.) 



Let. XVI. METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 265 

bishops, we have here, as in the previous cases, proof beyond 
controversy, that in apostolic times several bishops such as 
the New Testament sanctions, were accustomed to reside in a 
single city. Titus is directed to ordain a number of them in 
every city. But could these have been such bishops as Meth- 
odism "consecrates" of whose employment a great part seems 
to be " to travel at large among the people," and who cannot 
in any instance cease " to travel through the connexion at 
large" without permission of fhe General Conference, under 
the penalty of being deprived of their office ? 1 Peter 
1 : 1, 2. " The elders which are among you I exhort — feed 
the flock of God — talcing the oversight thereof" or, as the 
word in the original signifies, " exercising the office and per- 
forming the duties of a bishop." Whether Paul and Peter 
thought it needful, when about to confer the office of a scrip- 
tural bishop, first, to ordain the man a deacon ; secondly, to 
ordain him an elder; and thirdly and lastly, to "consecrate" 
him a bishop, we leave the candid reader to judge. We 
rather opine they were better instructed by Him, who, when 
the disciples strove which should be the greatest, set a little 
child in the midst, and bade them take him for a pattern 
of true greatness ; and who hath left on record the memora- 
ble sentence : " The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion 
over them, but it shall not be so among you." And as re- 
gards the judgment of Wesley, he expressly asserts, " Lord 
King's account of the primitive church convinced me many 
years ago, that bishops and elders are the same order." 

The evidence against Episcopacy is so conclusive that Wat- 
son affirms, " The argument drawn by the Presbyterians from 
the promiscuous use of these terms (bishop and elder) in the 
New Testament is incontrovertible." (Yol. ii. p. 575.) And 
even Dr. Bangs, who, in the Appendix to Buck's Theological 
Dictionary, has spoken so largely of the " three orders" and 
"the duties peculiar to each," elsewhere admits that " if any 
choose to say that we acknowledge two orders only, and a su- 
23 



2C6 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMLNIANISM. Let. XVI. 

perior minister possessing a delegated jurisdiction, &c. he has 
•my full consent." Here then we have a plain acknowledg- 
ment that the office of the Methodist bishop is of human origin 
— that it is superior to that of elder solely by the consent 
and delegation of man. Of course, all that is left to Meth- 
odist Episcopacy is a mere human invention. And the 
"divers orders" of the ministry appointed by "Almighty 
God" are reduced to two, deacons and elders ! Whether the 
number might not be still further reduced, must be decided 
by those who have examined the evidence of the ministerial 
character of the New Testament deacons. 

It is an inquiry also of much interest, When did Method- 
ist Episcopacy arise ? The Scriptures know nothing about it 
— from what causes did it originate? The opinion of Wes- 
ley upon the subject of its introduction may be learned from 
a letter to Mr. Asbury, then associated with Dr. Coke in the 
bishopric of America, under date of 1788. He said : " There 
is a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand 
to the American Methodists, and the relation wherein I stand 
to all the Methodists. * * * But in one point I am a 
little afraid both the Doctor and yourself differ from me. I 
study to be little, you study to be great. I creep, you strut 
along. I found a school, you a college — nay, call it by your 
own names. * * * One instance of your greatness has 
given me great concern. How can you, how dare you suffer 
yourself to be called a bishop 1 I shudder, I start at the 
very thought. Men may call me a knave, a fool, a rascal, a 
scoundrel, and I am content. But they shall never, by my 
consent, call me a bishop. For my sake, for God's sake, for 
Christ's sake, put a full end to this." 

It is obvious from the foregoing extract, that the nattering 
title which chimes so sweetly in the ear of ambitious ecclesi- 
astics, was at that time just beginning to be employed in the 
Methodist church. And whether it is probable that a man 
of Wesley's strong sense would make all this ado about a 



Let. XVI. METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 267 

mere name, if there had not been connected with it much of 
the arrogant assumption of the office, we submit to the deci- 
sion of candor. 

Both Scripture and Wesley refuse their countenance to 
Methodist Episcopacy. How then did it originate ? We 
reply, from the love of title and distinction which is native 
in the human heart. It appears that Mr. Wesley first 
appointed Dr. Coke, who was directed to appoint Mr. As- 
bury, superintendent of the Methodist churches in America, 
but this humble title did not long satisfy these reverend 
gentlemen. In four or five years, they began to employ 
the term bishop in the minutes of conference ; and at this 
time it was that Wesley wrote the letter we have quoted 
above, expressing his indignation and abhorrence of the sub- 
stitution. It seems, moreover, that at least one of these 
gentlemen had some occasional misgivings respecting the 
validity of his episcopal ordination. In 1804, Dr. Coke ap- 
plied to Bishop White of the Protestant Episcopal church, to 
have himself and others admitted to the episcopacy; thus 
acknowledging his claim to the office to be utterly destitute 
of foundation. He tells Bishop White "that Mr. Wesley 
had invested him with episcopal authority, so far as he had a 
right to do so j" but as Wesley never held higher than the 
priest's office in the Church of England, it is plain that 
Coke had as good a right to ordain to the episcopal office as 
Wesley ! 

These facts prepare us to appreciate the statement of the 
" Origin of the Methodist Episcopal Church," prefixed to her 
" Discipline." " Mr. Wesley," they tell us, "preferring the 
episcopal mode of church government to any other, in 1784 
solemnly set apart Thomas Coke for the episcopal office" — a 
priest ordaining a bishop— "that Mr. Wesley delivered to Dr. 
Coke letters of episcopal orders, and directed him to set apart 
Francis Asbury to the office of a bishop after arriving in 
America." In consequence of which, Mr. Asbury appears 



268 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVI. 

to have been hurried through the probationary degrees of 
deacon and elder; or, in the language of Dr. Bangs (Appen- 
dix to Buck), "was ordained by Dr. Coke, first to the office 
of deacon, then elder, and then superintendent or bishop;" 
and all, it seems, at the same meeting of conference ! And 
last, not least, we are told that "the general conference 
did unanimously receive the said Thomas Coke and Francis 
Asbury as their bishops, being fully satisfied of the validity 
of their episcopal ordination !" 

In this derivation of the succession of the episcopate, the 
preachers will find much scope for the exercise of faith. 
They must believe that Priest Wesley consecrated Bishop 
Coke, imparted an authority he did not possess. They must 
believe that by this means Thomas Coke became invested with 
all the rights, titles and appurtenances of a bishop, although 
the way Methodist bishops are now " constituted" is quite 
different. They must believe, nevertheless, that both inven- 
tions for making a bishop are right — that Thomas Coke was 
well and truly made a bishop by Mr. Wesley, only four years 
before he wrote, " call me knave, fool, rascal, scoundrel, but 
never call me bishop;" and they must believe that the letter 
(of which this is an extract) was directed (in 1788) to Mr. 
Asbury, and conveyed a most pungent reproof for permitting 
himself to be clothed with an office, and addressed by a title, 
which Mr. Wesley himself, only four years previously (1784) 
had expressly intended for him ; and for this purpose Priest 
Wesley had consecrated Bishop Coke, and Bishop Coke was 
to consecrate Bishop Asbury. (See Discip. M. E. Church.) 

But it were well if this singular affair terminated here. 
There is a much more serious aspect of the affair. Bishops, 
elders and deacons, have seated themselves in the high places 
of the church ; and it becomes an inquiry of much import- 
ance — How have they disposed of the laity ? We reply — 
they are so disposed of as to be relieved of the whole burden 
of saying or doing any thing in the secular or spiritual 



Let. XVI. METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 269 

administration. All they have to do is to contribute liberally 
and submit implicitly to the dictation of their superiors. 
The preachers have legislated the whole power over the tem- 
poral and spiritual concerns of the church out of the people's 
hands, and into their own. This Wesley candidly avowed as 
his original intention. In a letter to I. Mason, dated near 
London, January 13, 1790, " As long," says he, " as I live, 
the people shall have no share in choosing either stewards or 
leaders among the Methodists. We have not, and never had 
any such custom. We are no republicans, and never intend 
to be. It would be better for those that are so minded to go 
quietly away." Accordingly, when, in 1797, the people in 
some parts of England began to take the alarm, and peti- 
tioned in large numbers, u that they might have a voice in the 
formation of their own laws, the choice of their own officers, 
and the distribution of their own property " (see Buck's 
Theological Dictionary, art. Methodists), the love of power 
conquered the sense of right, and these petitioners were 
denied those privileges, which both reason and Scripture 
teach every man are the fundamental principles of all free- 
dom, civil as well as religious. In this country, too, the free 
spirit of our civil government has extended its reforming 
hand to the oppressions of religious tyranny. A large and 
respectable body of Methodists have begun to feel and act 
like Christian freemen. The rights and privileges for which 
they have been contending, are the same for which their 
brethren in England petitioned in 1797. And how have 
their efforts toward emancipation been received ? Just as 
might have been expected from a clerical aristocracy which 
holds all the power in its own hands, and wields the 
sword of discipline agreeably to its sovereign pleasure. The 
advocates of the people's rights were excommunicated — ex- 
communicated for insisting upon those very rights in ecclesi- 
astical matters, for which, in state policy, our fathers fought 
and bled in the great revolutionary struggle, viz. " A voice in 
23* 



270 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVI. 

making their own laws, electing their own rulers, and distrib- 
uting their own property " 

To these statements it has been replied, "that as every 
preacher, before he can be admitted by the conference, must 
be recommended by the laity, and as the conference cannot 
move a single step toward his admission, without such recom- 
mendation, it follows that the laity are the origin and source of 
all power in the church." But Dr. Bangs, in the Appendix 
to Buck, informs us that " a person thinking himself moved 
by the Holy Grhost to preach the gospel, first makes known 
his views and exercises to the preacher having charge of the 
circuit, who, if he considers the applicant a fit person (liere 
is the origin of all power), grants him license to exhort/' &c. 
Besides, if it were correct that the laity must recommend the 
candidate to the Conference before he can be received, it 
would be a marvelous proof of their holding all the power in 
their hands, because, forsooth, a man who wishes to turn 
preacher, must get a few of his friends to recommend him ! 
The quarterly conferences, it is further said, are composed 
partly of laymen ; and these bodies are the door of entrance 
to the ministry, &c. But these laymen, according to Dr. 
Bangs, "are the stewards, leaders and exhorters ,} of the 
circuit, appointed directly or indirectly by the preachers, and 
of course are completely under the control of their originators. 

Indeed, we may fearlessly affirm that there is not a form 
of church government on earth (the Papacy excepted), so 
radically opposed to republicanism as Methodism. The legis- 
lative, executive and judicial powers are all placed in the 
hands of a privileged aristocracy — the preachers; and at 
their sovereign nod, both men and money are disposed of, to 
promote whatever purposes piety, ambition, proselytism, or 
whim, may dictate. 

In proof of these statements, the Rev. Professor S. S. 
Schmucker, of the Lutheran church, himself a decided 
Arminian, has collected from the " Discipline" the following 
particulars of this clerical usurpation : 



Let. XVI. METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 271 

1. " The exclusive right of suffrage in the election of del- 
egates to the general conference and of bishops." A thing 
unknown in any other Protestant church. 

2. "Exclusive eligibility both to the annual and general 
conferences." In all other Protestant churches, laymen are 
eligible to the church courts. 

3. " The exclusive unlimited power to legislate for the whole 
church in matters of doctrine, discipline, and forms of wor- 
ship and minor regulations." The traveling preachers can 
change and reverse whenever they please, every item of doc- 
trine,* discipline and forms of worship; and no layman, nor 
even local preacher, can have a word to say in it. 

4. " The exclusive right to sit in judgment on the moral 
conduct of traveling preachers." In other churches such 
trials are conducted by laymen and ministers jointly. 

5. " The exclusive right of appointing all committees for 
the trial of lay members, without the power on the part of 
the accused to challenge any member of such committee, 
though he could prove him his bitterest enemy. 

6. " The exclusive right to conduct and control the book 
concern, and appropriate its extensive profits exclusively to 
their own benefit. 

7. " The exclusive right of eligibility to the editorship of 
the periodicals of the Methodist church : local preachers and 
laymen are excluded by the Discipline. 

8. " The exclusive right to hold and control all the Metho- 

* It may perhaps be questioned, whether the preachers have power, ac- 
cording to the Discipline, to change the doctrines of the Methodist church. 
It is admitted that among the provisions for altering and amending the Book 
of Discipline, it is said, " excepting the first article" which relates to doc- 
trine. But cannot the same power which inserted that exception strike it 
out? Cannot a majority of the General Conference erase that exception 
whenever they please ? The way is then open to abolish every doctrine of 
the system, and substitute in its stead any other ism which pleases them 
best. The people are therefore absolutely dependent upon the preachers, 
whether the Methodist Episcopal church is Universalist, Socinian, or Po- 
pish, in her doctrinal testimony ! 



272 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVI. 

dist churches and parsonages, deeded according to the Discip- 
line — to say who shall and who shall not occupy them, with- 
out consulting the wishes of the laity who paid for them. 
Even the trustees are nominated exclusively by the traveling 
preachers. In every other Protestant church in the land, 
each congregation has control of its own parsonage and church 
property. 

9. " The exclusive right to fix their own salary, that is, the 
amount to which they may retain possession of their collec- 
tions, and receive dividends from the several funds. In 
every other church, the people decide for themselves what 
sum they will allow their minister. 

10. " The exclusive right of their bishops to determine what 
minister each congregation shall have, without consulting 
the wishes of the people. In all other churches of our land, 
the congregation invites the person they think best suited 
to them. 

11. u An entire irresponsibility to the people for all their 
acts, legislative, judicial and executive, and for the distribu- 
tion of the extensive funds possessed by them ; no power on 
earth can call them to account." Thus far Dr. Schmucker. 
We are now prepared to understand Dr. Bangs, when he as- 
serts in his " Vindication" — " Every part of our government 
is elective." But who are the voters ? The reverend clergy. 
And is not the Pope elected by his reverend cardinals ? 

In concluding this Letter, we remark, that some difference 
of opinion appears to exist among the leaders of Methodist 
Episcopacy. Messrs. Bangs and Emory say, " their church 
government is in fact and name episcopal ;" and Dr. Emory 
adds : "In whatever sense distinct ordinations constitute dis- 
tinct orders, in the same sense Mr. Wesley certainly intended 
that we should have three orders." But Dr. Bond, senior, 
affirms that "the episcopacy is NOT a distinct ministerial order } 
but only a superior office; and that is the light in which it has 
always been considered." Now, in the language of Dr. Mus- 



Let. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 273 

grave, "if nothing more is meant by their distinct l episcopal' 
ordination, than the giving of the power of general superin- 
tendence, why talk about their three orders, and their due 
6 order and succession!!' — If men will be guilty of such 
nonsense, they must expect to be laughed at for their sim- 
plicity; and by none more heartily than Episcopalians them- 
selves, whose forms they so absurdly imitate." 

As to the fact that the preachers have all ecclesiastical 
power, executive, legislative and judicial, in their own hands, 
it is "a bad eminence" which all right-thinking men should 
shun, for their own sakes, as well as for the liberty and 
security of the laity. 



LETTER XVII. 

PREACHER USURPATIONS— CONTROL OF PROPERTY— AMERI- 
CAN INDEPENDENCE " THE WORK OF THE DEVIL." 

Rev. Sir — In the list of clerical exactions stated by Prof. 
Schmucker, there is one item that requires a separate consid- 
eration : 

XII. The Difficulties of Episcopal Methodism, in 

RELATION TO CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PROPERTY. 

In all other denominations, with the single exception of 
Popery, when a congregation build a house of worship, it is 
their own to all intents and purposes. Not so, however, in 
Methodist Episcopacy ; for the preachers require all such val- 
uable interests to be deeded to them and placed entirely be- 
yond the control of the original owners. It is true the form 
of deed in the Discipline (p. 176) conveys the property to 
trustees in the first instance — but mark ! It is "in trust that 
they shall build a house or place of worship for the use of the 
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
States, according to the rules and discipline which, from time 



274 DIFFICULTIES OF ARLIINIANISM. Let. XVII. 

to time, may be agreed on and adopted by the PREACHERS of 
said church." " And in further trust that they shall at all 
times permit such preachers" " to preach and expound Grod's 
holy word therein/' &c. &c. The property, then, is for the 
use of the people according to the rules adopted by the preach- 
ers, and they can have the use of it no longer than they 
quietly submit to those rules, however unjust or oppressive 
they may be. All that is necessary, therefore, to enable an 
avaricious priesthood to take quiet possession of the immense 
and accumulating property of the Methodist Episcopal church, 
is to enact rules sufficiently oppressive to force away the 
people, and the whole wealth of the church is theirs, deeded 
and confirmed to them forever. 

In defense of this feature of the system, it has been said, 
that if " the preachers cease to be Methodists, they have no 
right to the use of the meeting houses, and the same is true 
of the members" But is it true that any conference of 
preachers have the right to make laws, the purport of which 
is — " If you, the people, exercise your rights of conscience, 
and 'cease to be Methodists,' you must leave your property in 
our hands — it is yours no longer V Is this toleration or re- 
ligious liberty ? Who gives the preachers a right to impose 
a tax of this kind upon as many of their people as become 
tired of their ecclesiastical supervision ? The law of God will 
regard property thus obtained as " the wages of unrighteous- 



It is plain, therefore, that if a Methodist Episcopal congre- 
gation unanimously resolve to unite with another denomina- 
tion of Christians, say the Protestant Methodists, they are 
obliged to surrender their house of worship, to forsake the 
temple which their labors and wealth had reared for their 
accommodation, to leave all in the hands of Methodist Epis- 
copal preachers, and commence anew from the foundation. 
They cannot touch a cent of it. The property is theirs no 
longer than they continue obedient and faithful servants of 



Let. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 275 

the preachers, and submit to he governed by their rules. 
And if every Methodist congregation in the land were succes- 
sively to renounce the system, unanimously renounce it, they 
could not keep possession of a cent of their property — it must 
lie in the hands of the preachers to be disposed of according 
to their "rules" A congregation may wish to make sale of 
the house they have erected out of their own funds : but no ! 
they dare not. And even when, in case of debt, the trustees 
are authorized to sell the property to pay it, the surplus is 
deposited (not in the hands of the trustees, or returned to 
those who are its lawful owners, but) " in the hands of the 
steward, to be at the disposal of the next annual conference" — 
it is added, indeed, u for the use of said society" — as much as 
to say, u we, the preachers, think you, the rightful owners, do 
not know what use to make of your money — we will kindly 
relieve you of the burden of it. To allege that the preachers 
of the Methodist Episcopal church will always be men of too 
much probity and uprightness to abuse the power placed in 
their hands, is only to show the extreme credulity of the ob- 
jector. All history testifies that the direct method to corrupt 
the best of men, is to place at their disposal unlimited and 
uncontrolled power, whether of wealth, or any other kind of 
influence. Mankind have learned an impressive lesson of the 
working of such a system, from the corruptions and abomina- 
tions of the Papal hierarchy, possessing, as they do, and con- 
trolling millions of property wrung from the small earnings 
of poverty, by the hard hand of superstition and falsehood. 
Let the myriads of lazy, worthless priests, monks, and other 
"religious," who fatten on these spoils, put Protestants on 
their guard. Rome spiritual, as well as Rome political, was 
not built in a day. Beware of the beginnings of evil, which 
are as the letting out of water. And the example of Protest- 
ant England is scarcely less admonitory — her pampered arch- 
bishops, bishops and other clergy, having saddled their rich 
benefices upon a people who in large part reject with contempt 



276 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVII. 

their spiritual ministrations. And we should also recollect 
that seventeen years ago (1843) the meeting houses and par- 
sonages under control of the preachers, were estimated at 
three millions eight hundred thousand dollars — and that be- 
sides these, they had their "chartered fund" their "book 
concern" their magazines, weekly papers, &c. It was there- 
fore a low estimate which placed the whole, even then, at 
from four to five millions of dollars. From the increase of 
the body, no less than from the common rise of the value 
of property, these various sources of income may reasonably 
be estimated now, at not less than ten millions of dollars. It 
cannot be denied that all these funds are under the control of 
the preachers, and the proceeds are for the exclusive use of 
themselves and their families — as will be fully proved in a 
future Letter. On the first of January, 1842, the net capital 
of the " Book Concern" was more than $600,000 ; and the 
net profits for that year were nearly $40,000. As Dr. Mus- 
grave well remarks — " It is idle to say that these preachers 
are pious men and will not abuse their power. We know 
they are but men, and by their own showing, the best of 
them may l fall from grace/ " 

The ultimate tendencies of a system such as we have been 
examining, present to the inquisitive mind a melancholy pros- 
pect. The experience of all Popish countries proves, that the 
most direct method of enslaving any people in a political 
point of view, is, to take from them their independence in 
religion. Bring them to suffer the privilege and right of 
self-government in religion to pass into the hands of others — 
persuade them to surrender the right of thinking and acting 
like Christian freemen, and you have a people prepared, on 
the first opportunity, to submit the trouble of political rule to 
any aspiring demagogue who may volunteer his services. 
The habit of implicit submission to the dictation of others, 
is soon formed; and what was at first esteemed a precious 
right, will soon come to be regarded as an oppressive burden. 



Let. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 277 

The spirit of lofty independence will be broken, and the man 
will be merged in the abject slave. The British monarch, 
James I. had some skill in this matter. When assigning a 
reason for wishing to put down Presbytery and elevate Epis- 
copacy, he delivered the royal maxim — " no bishop, no king" 
— he uttered a sentiment which has been repeated a thousand 
times as a favorite and acknowledged principle, by the enemies 
of civil and religious liberty. So also, a writer in the London 
Quarterly Review, a work devoted to the interests of episco- 
pacy and toryism, uses the following strong language : " Cer- 
tain it is, that monarchy and episcopacy are much more nearly 
connected than writers of bad faith or little reflection have 
sought to persuade mankind." " There is an insensible, but 
natural inclination toward democracy" says the same writer, 
" which arises from the principles of a popxdar church govern- 
ment" * On the other hand, the natural alliance between a 
popular church government and civil liberty, has been alter- 
nately the theme of praise from its friends, and of reproach 
from its enemies, from time immemorial. Clarendon and 
Hume acknowledge it in all the bitterness of their hostility. 

But it has been replied, that the traveling preachers cannot 
lighteously be charged with being a clerical aristocracy, 
because "they have left in the hands of the laity the all- 
important power of withholding every cent of pecuniary sup- 
port." And Dr. Bangs, in his " Vindication," chap. 10, on 
" the- privileges of members of our church," states the third 
to be, that "no member can be censured for not contributing 
to the support of the ministry." Is it indeed so ? On page 

* The unhappy Charles, during his conflicts with the Parliament, was 
urged to give his consent to abolish Episcopacy. This he refused, because, 
among other things, Episcopacy was more friendly to monarchy than Pres- 
bytery. " Show me," said he, "any precedent where presbyterial govern- 
ment and regal wore together, without perpetual rebellions." "And it can- 
not be otherwise, for the ground of their doctrine is anti-monarchical." 
"There was not a wiser man since Solomon, than he who said, 'No bishop, 
no king.' " 

24 



278 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVII. 

185 of the Book of Discipline, is a rule requiring " weekly 
class collections wherever it is practicable/' to meet the allow- 
ances to the preachers, &c. And on page 98 they say, that 
in " cases of neglect of duties of any kind, or disobedience 
to the order and discipline of the church," the offender is on 
the third offense to be " cut off" or excommunicated. Now 
is it a duty of " any kind," or any part of the " order and 
discipline" to contribute at the class collections? Then, on 
the third instance of neglect to pay the preacher, all orthodox 
Methodists enjoy the precious privilege of being regularly 
excluded from the church ! The trouble of making and 
executing laws for the government of the brethren is not 
to go unrewarded — the laborer is worthy of his hire. The 
preachers bear the burden of exclusive legislation — they re- 
lieve the people of all part and lot in that matter. Is it not 
right that they should be punished, if they refuse to be taxed 
for these inestimable " privileges V 9 

In the light of these facts we are prepared to appreciate 
the zeal with which, some years since, Methodist preachers 
reechoed the hue and cry of infidels, that the civil and reli- 
gious freedom of the country was in danger from Presbyte- 
rianism. Many persons will remember the time and circum- 
stances of this disgraceful affair. Their great paper, the 
Christian Advocate and Journal, published an article enti- 
tled, " Murder will out," professing to discover to the world 
some dreadful conspiracy which the Presbyterians were plot- 
ting against the civil and religious liberties of the country— - 
designing to unite the Presbyterian church with the civil gov- 
ernment, and hold the posts of honor and emolument in their 
own hands. Of course their clergy were to reap the rich re- 
wards of the successful execution of this scheme ! Twenty 
or thirty thousand copies of this infidel publication imme- 
diately issued from New York, and the circuit riders were 
flying from one end of the land to the other, bearing the im- 
portant news. Their pulpits and even the day of rest were 



Let. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 279 

employed to trumpet the wonderful discovery ! " I do be- 
lieve/' said one of these ardent patriots, " they are secretly 
combining to get their religion established ; and I would have 
no hesitancy in advancing the above ideas and language from 
the pulpit." (Letter of a circuit rider, dated August 5, 1829.) 

Intelligent men of all classes will not soon forget that this 
crusade was preached by the very men whose form of ecclesi- 
astical government is in direct contrast with our republican 
institutions ; and whose spiritual forefathers were those preach- 
ers who, whilst Dr. Witherspoon and other Presbyterians, 
both ministers and laity (with perhaps no exception), were 
nobly stemming the tide of oppression, basely fled from the 
land of their adoption, and consigned her sons to the sword 
of tyranny, the doom of rebels. " During the revolutionary 
war," says Dr. Bangs, "all the preachers, except Mr. Asbury,* 
returned to their native land." Yes, they loved " their native 
land" too well to find rest to the sole of their foot in a coun- 
try where grinding oppression had roused the spirit of inde- 
pendence, and tories had fallen into disrepute. "All the 
Methodists there," says "Wesley, "were firm for the govern- 
ment (that is, were all tories), and on that account were 
persecuted by the rebels." Wesley's "Works, vol. iii. p. 411. 

Such then, is the sort of men who are so jealous for our 
liberties and so prompt to detect and expose Presbyterian 
plots for their overthrow ! Nor should it be forgotten, that 
these patriotic preachers, who, in the language of the founder 
of their system, "are no republicans (in ecclesiastical mat- 
ters) and never intend to be/' are in the constant practice of 

* Mr. Asbury concealed himself among the tories of the State of Dela- 
ware. And yet when the storm had scarce blown over, their patriotism 
bursts into a blaze; and bishops Coke and Asbury present an address to 
General Washington, in which they speak of " our civil and religious liber- 
ties transmitted to us by th providence of God and the glorious revolution !" 
And " the most excellent constitution of these States, at present the admira* 
tion of the world, and its great exemplar for imitation .'!" (See Arminiaa 
Magazine, vol. i. p. 284.) 



280 DIFFICULTIES OF AKMINIANISM. Let. XVII. 

circulating, by means of their book concern, sentiments which 
are high tory and treasonable. The following passages from 
the third volume of Wesley's Sermons, pp. 406, 408, will 
illustrate our meaning — " Thus," says he, "we have observed 
each of these wheels apart — on the one hand, trade, wealth, 
luxury, sloth and wantonness, spreading far and wide through 
the American provinces ; on the other, the spirit of indepen- 
dency diffusing itself from north to south. Let us observe 
how the wise and gracious providence of God uses one to 
check the other, and even employs (if so strong an expres- 
sion may be allowed) Satan to cast out Satan. Probably 
that subtle spirit (the devil) hoped by adding to all those other 
vices the spirit of independency, to have overturned the whole 
work of Grod, as well as the British government in North 
America. " So it seems that independence and the overthrow 
of the British government in this country, were the works of 
the devil I Again: "The spirit of independence which our 
poet so justly terms 'the glorious fault of angels and of gods' 
(that is in plain terms, of devils), the same which so many 
call liberty, is overruled by the justice and mercy of (rod." 
This is truly a bright picture of our glorious revolution, and 
of the principal actors in its trying scenes. Their love of 
liberty was, after all, only " the glorious fault of devils !" 

These statements are abundantly confirmed by Southey, 
in his Life of Wesley. He argued, we are told, against the 
principle that representation should accompany taxation, and 
asserted that the people had a right to nothing but protection ; 
that the tea tax was legal and reasonable, and that the war 
of the Revolution was of Puritan origin. He alleged that 
the greatest degree of liberty was to be enjoyed under a 
monarchy. His opposition to our war of independence was 
most intense. He said of it, I am " pleading the cause of 
my king and country, yea, of every country ;" " pleading 
against those principles that naturally tend to anarchy and 
confusion." And he earnestly endeavored to enlist the whole 



Let. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 281 

Methodist body against the American cause. In a letter 
dated 1782, he says : " Two or three years ago, when the 
kingdom was in great danger, I made an offer to the govern- 
ment of raising men f thus it was owing to the moderation 
of the British government, more than to the principles of 
Methodism, that its leader did not take his spiritual power 
into the work of recruiting sergeant for the British army, to 
raise men among Methodists for the butchery of our fathers. 

We could cover with the mantle of charity the weakness 
and errors of John Wesley, a British subject and a staunch 
royalist j but when we behold these self-constituted guardians 
of our liberties, these zealous watchmen, eager to sound the 
alarm of approaching danger from the ambitious designs of 
Presbyterians — when we find these incorruptible patriots 
sending out, as on the wings of the four winds of heaven, 
thousands and tens of thousands of copies of a work, which 
breathes the very spirit of toryism and treason, it is difficult 
to find a covering wide enough to hide their guilt and shame. 

Further: If the overthrow of the British power and the 
establishment of American independence, were the works 
of the devil, as Wesley affirms, and the preachers print 
and publish to the world, must they not feel themselves 
bound to destroy " the works of the devil ?" Are we then to 
understand that the Methodist hierarchy is leagued together 
to overthrow our republican institutions ? And are we further 
to understand that the charge against Presbyterianism of 
" secretly combining" against the liberties of the country, 
was only a piece of generalship, a skillful diversion in favor 
of their own deep conspiracy ! ! 

But if the preachers really disapprove of ascribing Amer- 
ican independence to the agency of the devil, why do they 
print and publish, and widely circulate such sentiments? 
" Because/' it is replied, " we do not choose to mutilate the 
volumes!" To mutilate the volumes! To mutilate is "to 
deprive of some essential part" And are those u essential 
24* 



282 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVII. 

parts" of a volume of sermons, which ascribe our liberty 
and independence to the devil ! We should like to inquire 
■whether the preachers regard the tory and treasonable senti- 
ments uttered by Wesley as true or false 1 If they say they 
are true, then do they confess themselves as staunch tories as 
ever their spiritual forefathers were. If they say they are/a?se, 
then we ask, would it mutilate a volume of sermons to omit its 
falsehood! Or do these preachers and publishers regard 
falsehood as an l( essential part" of a volume of sermons? But 
are these gentlemen always so excessively scrupulous in the 
matter of mutilating volumes ? Do they not publish the 
works of Calvinistic authors, retaining their names, whilst 
every shred of the peculiarities of Calvinism is eviscerated 
and suppressed ? Or is it only Arminian toryism that must 
not be mutilated ? 

We cannot but hope that the foregoing statement of facts 
will henceforth impose silence on the preachers in regard to 
the dark designs of Presbyterians. And if they should com- 
mence the work of "mutilation " we would suggest the 
following additional passages as not unworthy of their atten- 
tion, along with the extracts from the sermons, viz. " The 
supposition that the people are the origin of power, is every 
way indefensible." "You (Americans) profess to be con- 
tending for liberty, but it is a vain, empty profession" &c. 
But the best is yet to come. " No governments under heaven 
are so despotic as the republican : no subjects are gov- 
erned in so arbitrary a manner as those of a commonwealth." 
" Should any man talk or write of the Dutch government as 
every cobbler does of the English, he would be laid in irons 
before he knew where he was. And woe be to him. Repub- 
lics show no mercy." These tory sentiments are scattered 
among the families of this republic, as the opinions of a man 
who, they are taught to believe, was only not infallible. See 
Works of Wesley, vol. iii. pp. 130-134. 

In striking contrast with this singular medley of Methodist 



Let. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 283 

Episcopacy, let us hear the venerable Dr. Miller describe the 
episcopacy of the New Testament and of good sense : 

" We suppose/' remarks Dr. M. " that there is, properly 
speaking, but one order of gospel ministers ', that every regu- 
lar pastor of a congregation is a scriptural bishop ; or that 
every presbyter who has been set apart, ( by the laying on of 
the hands of the presbytery * ( 1 Tim. 4:14), who has the 
pastoral charge of a particular church, is, to all intents and 
purposes, a bishop; having a right, in company with others, 
his equals, to ordain and to perform every service pertaining 
to the episcopal office. We suppose that there are, indeed, 
two other classes of church officers, viz. ruling elders and dea- 
cons; but that neither of these are authorized to labor in word 
and doctrine, or to administer the Christian sacraments. We 
suppose there is a plain distinction made in Scripture between 
ciders who only rule, and elders who also ' labor in word and 
doctrine.' 1 Tim. 5 : 17. 

" Our judicatories, from the highest to the lowest, are all 
made up of laymen as well as clergymen ; and in all of them, 
excepting the highest, if the laity exercise their rights, there 
will be a larger number of the former than of the latter; and 
in the highest judicatory, an equal number. This, of course, 
gives to the laity of our communion constant and intimate 
access to all our plans and measures, and all the opportunity 
that can be desired to exercise their full share of power in 
controlling those measures. The people cannot be oppressed, 
unless they conspire to oppress themselves I" (Letter to a 
gentleman of Baltimore, p. 72.) This conclusive reasoning 
would doubtless lack most of its force, if the laymen, of whom 
Dr. M. speaks, were, like the " class-leaders, stewards, trus- 
tees and exhorters" of Methodism, indebted exclusively to the 
preachers for their appointment or nomination : but this is 
so far from being the fact, that the laymen who participate 
in all the councils of Presbyterianism, are the representatives 
of the congregations, chosen by a majority of votes, and 



284 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVII. 

delegated by their own deliberate, uncontrolled choice and 
designation; to this special duty. This is literally the fact in 
every instance, in regard to the three lower forms of judica- 
tory ; and may be literally true of their appointment to the 
highest, whenever the laity exercise their constitutional right 
to have a majority in the presbyteries which elect the delegates. 
But the inquiry may here arise — Is there any scriptural 
warrant for a system of church government so thoroughly 
republican as this ? Does the word of G-od authorize the 
commitment of ecclesiastical power so entirely into the hands 
of the people ? In reply, we refer to the record of the ap- 
pointment of deacons, in the 6th chapter of Acts. Let the 
inquirer open his Bible and read — "The twelve called the 
multitude of the disciples unto them and said : Brethren, 
look ye out among you seven men, whom we may appoint 
over this business. And the saying pleased the whole multi- 
tude, and they chose Stephen and Philip," &c. (Not the 
preachers, nor bishops, nor even the Apostles chose them ; not 
even inspired Apostles would venture to take the right of 
election out of the hands of the people.) "Whom," con- 
tinues the record, " they set before the Apostles, and when 
they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." Can any 
thing be more evident than that the first deacons were 
elected by the voice of the people, or by " the whole multitude 
of the disciples ?" Now turn to the 32d page of the Meth- 
odist Book of Discipline — lt How is a traveling deacon con- 
stituted ?" " By the election " — of the people ? of the whole 
multitude of the disciples ? No ! but " of the majority of the 
yearly conference" which is composed exclusively of preach- 
ers ; not a solitary layman holding a seat among them. The 
unscriptural character of this feature of the system must 
therefore be obvious to all. In the days of the Apostles, the 
people chose their own deacons, but Methodism has ventured 
to improve upon the primitive plan, and her preachers exer- 
cise a power which Apostles did not dare to assume. 



Let. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 285 

Again, we refer the reader to the 15th chapter of Acts, 
for further proof of scriptural republicanism : " Certain men 
which came down from Judea taught the brethren — 'Except 
ye be circumcised/ &c. They (the brethren) determined that 
Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them (the brethren) 
should go up to Jerusalem — they were received of the church, 
and of the Apostles and elders — and the Apostles and elders 
came together to consider of this matter. Then pleased it 
the Apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen 
men of their own company — the Apostles, elders, and breth- 
ren, send greeting — it seemed good unto us (the Apostles, 
elders, and brethren), being assembled with one accord, to 
send chosen men unto you," &c. If these passages do not 
prove the fact, that under the direction of inspired Apostles, 
the people did participate in the deliberations and legisla- 
tive acts of the Synod of Jerusalem — if they do not deter- 
mine the Divine right of private members of the church to a 
share in its government, it is difficult to say what evidence 
would suffice. But suppose these things had been transacted 
by a Methodist conference, annual or general. How would 
it have read ? The reverend traveling preachers (although 
the "brethren" had not "chosen" one of them "to go up" to 
conference,) came together for to consider of this matter. 
Then pleased it the traveling preachers to exclude from their 
conference all local preachers, to allow them no seat nor vote 
in their meeting. And when there had been much disputing, 
a certain bishop, surnamed Peter, rose up, and addressed 
the preachers. "Then all the multitude" (of the preachers') 
kept silence and gave audience — and after he had held 
his peace, bishop James delivered a speech to the " whole mul- 
titude" of preachers. Then pleased it the reverend travel- 
ing preachers, " with the whole church" of traveling preachers, 
to send chosen men to Antioch. And they wrote letters — 
"The traveling preachers, with 'the brethren,' who are also 
traveling preachers, send greeting — It seemed good unto us, 



286 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVIL 

the traveling preachers," &c. &c. Now in this portrait we 
have merely supposed the Apostles to have been good Meth- 
odists — that they excluded all laymen and local preachers 
from a seat and vote in their councils, and after having been 
self-appointed to conference, that they took the whole business 
of legislation out of the hands of the people. We have also 
substituted the words " traveling preachers" in the place of 
"the brethren/' "all the multitude/' "the whole church/' 
&c. as they occur in the 15th chapter of the Acts of the 
Apostles. It would be manifestly absurd to speak of "all 
the multitude/' "the whole church/' "the brethren/' as 
being present, "giving audience/' and uniting in the business 
of legislation, in a Methodist conference. In this mirror, 
then, the candid inquirer may see at one view, the republi- 
canism of Scripture, and the aristocracy of Methodism. Nor 
will he feel surprise to find Dr. Bangs in his "Vindication," 
express his fears for a " ministry under the control and at the 
mercy of the people" p. 158. Doubtless Dr. B. thinks it 
much safer to bave the people under the control and at the 
mercy of the preachers ! 

Such, then, in the language of another, is Episcopal Meth- 
odism — an anomaly in the midst of our free institutions. 
Her mother^ the Protestant Episcopal church, it is well 
known, admits the principle of lay representation. So that 
excepting her grandmother of Rome, she is the only church 
in America that is not blessed with " the liberty wherewith 
Christ hath made us free." 



Let. XVIII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 237 



LETTER XVIII. 

CLERICAL USURPATIONS — PREACHERS FIX THEIR OWN 
SALARIES, AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR PAYMENT. 

Rev. Sir — The impression is often made by the agents of 
your system that whilst the ministers of other denominations 
are abundantly paid for their labors, the Methodist preachers 
not only receive no pecuniary compensation, but indignantly 
spurn the thought, as degrading them to a level with hireling 
priests. Whether this impression is intentionally left upon 
the minds of the people, we know not; we only state the fact. 
We believe, however, that a careful examination will clearly 
establish the truth, that your preachers have provided for 
themselves more liberally than the people have provided for the 
ministry of any other branch of the American church. In 
this they have only practiced upon the principle avowed by 
the founder of their system. " I know," says Wesley 
(Works, vol. i. p. 78), "the spiritual laborer is worthy of his 
reward; and that if we sow to our flock spiritual things, it is 
meet that we reap of their carnal things : I do not therefore 
blame, no, not in any degree, a minister's taking a yearly 



XIII. The Difficulties of Methodist Episcopacy — 
Preachers fix their own Salaries, and provide 
for their liberal payment. 

The following items they have enacted into laws for re- 
munerating the traveling ministry for their toils : 

I. "The annual allowance of the traveling preachers shall 
be two hundred dollars, and their traveling expenses. 

II. Each child of a traveling preacher shall be allowed 
sixteen dollars annually to the age of seven years; and 
twenty-four dollars annually from seven to fourteen. And 
those preachers whose wives are dead, shall be allowed for 



288 DIFFICULTIES OF AltMINIANISM. Let. XVIII. 

each child a sum sufficient to pay the board of such child or 
children for the above term of years. Nevertheless, this rule 
shall not apply to the children of preachers whose families 
are provided for by other means, in their circuits respectively. 

III. The allowance of superannuated, worn-out, and super- 
numerary preachers, shall be two hundred dollars annually. 

IV. The annual allowance of their widows shall be one 
hundred dollars. 

V. Their orphans shall be allowed the same sums respect- 
ively which are allowed to the children of living preachers. 
And on the death of a preacher, leaving a child or children 
without so much of worldly goods as should be necessary to 
his, or her, or their support, the annual conference shall raise 
a yearly sum for the subsistence and education of such orphan 
child or children until he, she or they shall be fourteen 
years of age." 

Again : " It shall be the duty of said committee or one 
appointed for that purpose, to make an estimate of the amount 
necessary to furnish fuel and table expenses for the family or 
families of preachers stationed with them, and the stewards 
shall provide by such means as they may devise, to meet such 
expenses, in money or otherwise." 

Again : " It is recommended by the general conference to 
the traveling preachers, to advise our friends in general, to 
purchase a lot of ground in each circuit, and to build a 
preacher's house thereon, and to furnish it with at least 
the heavy furniture." " The general conference recommend 
to all the circuits (if not able to build a preacher's house), 
to rent a house for the married preacher and his family, and 
that the annual conferences do assist to make up the rents 
of such houses as far as they can, when the circuits cannot 
do it." 

Thus far the Discipline. We will take an average case, 
say a preacher with wife and five children, two above and 
three under seven years : 



Let. XVIII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 289 

Annual allowance for himself and wife, - $200 CO 

Two children ahove seven, $24 each, - - - - 4800 

Three children under seven, $16 each, - - - - 4S 00 
Table expenses, or boarding, at 75 cents each per week, for six 
persons, omitting the youngest child, and omitting domestics, 

fuel, &e. 283 00 

House rent and heavy furniture, ----- 55 00 

Traveling expenses to conference, &c. - - - - 3000 



$664 00 

This liberal allowance will, of course, increase with the fam- 
ily, and should the preacher become disabled by accident, or 
sickness, or old age, the allowance is continued to him and his 
children, even though he should be laid aside in the early part 
of his ministry ; so that for a few years, or weeks, or days' ser- 
vice, he and his family may receive their allowance for half a 
century. And when he goes to rest from his labors, he has the 
consolation of knowing that his widow and children will not 
be cast upon the cold charity of an unfeeling world, but will 
be provided with a very respectable annual allowance. Well 
may we inquire with Dr. Schmucker, " What denomination 
of Christians is there in our land, whose ministers would not 
gladly accept this provision V 

Nothing but the necessity of defending ourselves against 
the ungenerous assaults of our adversaries, would constrain 
us to enter into these minute calculations. Since, however, 
they have provoked the discussion, we esteem it to be our duty 
to let the Christian public know the whole truth. It should 
be remembered, therefore, that the foregoing estimates are made 
for a region of country where the ordinary salaries of the 
ministers of other denominations rate from $400 to $600 — 
rarely above the latter sum, except in a few instances, in 
large and expensive villages and their vicinity; and often 
less than the former amount ($400). With what shadow of 
truth or justice, tnen, are these men denounced by the 
" preachers/' whose allowance by their own Discipline, is 
considerably larger ? This their most zealous advocates are 
25 



290 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVIII. 

compelled to admit. The Discipline, moreover, is the handi- 
work of the preachers exclusively. This sum, therefore ($660), 
is the annual compensation which they have ordained to be 
due for their ministerial services. This is the sum they will 
receive, if .they can get it, and which they have passed the 
requisite laws to secure, provided the people will submit to 
be taxed to this amount. What then becomes of their volun- 
tary poverty ? Ought they not to blush for the outcry which 
they have raised respecting the large salaries of the clergy 
of other branches of the church ? Is it fair, is it honest, to 
indulge in harsh reflections and taunting insinuations against 
ministers who do not receive, in numberless instances, so large 
a salary as Methodist preachers have decreed to be not too 
large a sum for a clergyman with a certain family ? 

We are not sufficiently in possession of the facts to form a 
detailed estimate for our largest sized towns and cities. The 
following statements, however, will afford a clew to explain 
how these matters are managed there. In the trial of an 
action for libel in New York, brought by Azor Hoyt against 
Rev. Messrs. Waugh, Emory, Bangs and J. Collard, Rev. 
Dr. Durbin testified as follows : "My salary is twelve hundred 
and fifty dollars annually; that of Mr. Bangs, I think, fif- 
teen hundred or upward — that of Mr. Merritt, about twelve 
hundred — that of Mr. Waugh, sixteen hundred — that of Mr. 
Mason is, I think, over one thousand and under fifteen hun- 
dred dollars" Now, whether it is understood that besides 
this moneyed compensation, these gentlemen receive a fur- 
nished house, rent free, table expenses, &c. according to the 
Discipline, we are not informed. If so, the foregoing sums 
would be swelled to a very handsome remuneration for their 
toils. 

Dr. Durbin's statements referred to a period more than 
twenty years ago. A few years later, a correspondent in Bal- 
timore wrote to the author : " In regard to this city, I have 
no doubt you might safely estimate ' table expenses/ &c. at 



Let. XVIII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS: 291 

from seven to eight hundred dollars, and the average of their 
house rent at three hundred." 

But to return to our estimate for the country. If the 
preachers, as we have shown, have ordained six hundred dol- 
lars as their annual salary, it is justly due, or it is not. If 
not justly due, then it is "the wages of unrighteousness;" 
but if it be justly due to the preacher, why are Presbyterian 
ministers denounced for receiving generally a much smaller 
sum, particularly as it is always the voluntary offering of the 
people to the man of their choice, not a preacher sent by the 
bishop and saddled on the congregation, whether they will or 
not ? 

In reply to these statements, it has been retorted with 
much warmth, " The preachers do not get the sums allowed 
by the Discipline." Very probably in many cases it is so. 
We should think it strange if it were otherwise. There is 
some reason, however, to believe, as will be shown presently, 
that the payment of the allowance is the ordinary practice, 
its non-payment the exception. But admitting that the 
preachers " do not get" what their rules allow, it must be 
because the people will not submit to be taxed to the full amount 
agreed upon by their spiritual rulers. We have already cited 
the rule of the Discipline, declaring " the offender must be 
cut off" on the third instance of "neglect of duties of any 
kind/' or " disobedience to the order and discipline of the 
church ;" that is, " if there be no sign of humiliation." Of 
course, it follows, that if this rule were put in force, every 
third instance of "neglect" to pay the preacher would be 
followed by excommunication, if there were no signs of re- 
pentance ! And again : " Remember, a Methodist preacher 
is to mind every point great and small in the Methodist Dis- 
cipline." If the preacher's salary is not paid, what does it 
prove ? Why, only that they have gone a little too fast and 
too far in passing the laws which impose the tax upon the 
people, or in common phrase, " have reckoned without their 



292 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIX. 

host." The people will not submit to their rules, and the 
preachers dare not enforce them; and there they stand re- 
corded evidence against their authors of their disposition to 
take much more than they can get, without risking the loss of 
many of their members. The tax laws are there a terror to 
evil doers who might neglect to pay the preacher, and no 
doubt thousands are thereby collected from the weak and 
credulous who would rather give their money than cause 
strife, or run the hazard of being excluded from the church. 
In my next Letter, reference will be made to facts, in 
order to shed further light upon the question of the payment 
of the preachers' salaries. 



LETTER XIX. 

ARE THE PREACHERS' SALARIES PAID? 

Rev. Sir — We come now to the testimony of facts, in re- 
gard to the payment of the liberal salaries which the travel- 
ing preachers have provided for themselves. We first quote 
the directions on pages 185, 188 of the "Discipline:" "Let 
there be made weekly class collections in all our societies where 
it is practicable," and " every preacher" having charge of a 
circuit is required to H make a yearly collection, and if expe- 
dient a quarterly one, in every congregation where there is a 
probability the people will be willing to contribute." It is 
admitted there is sometimes "a surplus in the hands of the 
stewards, after paying the allowances of the preachers in the 
circuit." Secondly, we adduce the following testimony ex- 
tracted from the Religious Intelligencer of New Haven, 
p. 793 : Ci I was brought up a Methodist," remarks this wit- 
ness, a and my parents are to this hour members of that 
society. I have been a preacher in that denomination a 

number of years. In the year I thought it my duty to 

request a dismission from that body ; and as there was nothing 



Let. XIX. ARE PREACHERS' SALARIES PAID ? 293 

against my religious and moral character, I was accordingly 
dismissed, and united myself to a respectable association of 
Congregational ministers in New England. Soon after this I 
had a call to settle with the congregation cf which I am now 
pastor. From this statement, you will easily conclude that I 
must be well acquainted with the doctrine and discipline of 
the Methodists. To the honor of the Methodists I can say, I 
always received my salary with great punctuality." (Here 
he makes some calculations, which are precisely like those 
given above, except that he actually received four dollars per 
week boarding for himself and wife, whilst we have stated it 
at seventy-five cents each in the foregoing calculation.) " As 
respects their not getting what the Discipline allows," adds 
this writer, "it may he true in somefeiv cases; but without any 
reflection upon the Methodist preachers as a body, most of 
these men are of that class who would get far less in almost 
any other situation. I have made the proposal several times 
to my society, to place my salary on the plan of the Method- 
ist Discipline." (Here he compares his salary with what it 
would be in the Methodist church, and finds that for his fam- 
ily of seven persons, his salary would be raised twenty-eight 
dollars and the house rent") " That the respectable Methodist 
preachers do get their salaries (he continues), we cannot 
doubt. I can any time bring forward cases in which Meth- 
odist preachers have received the notes of the circuit stewards 
on interest for the balance of their salary for the year, when 
it has not been promptly paid." Such, then, is the unvar- 
nished tale of this witness, satisfactorily proving that the 
statutes, by which the preachers have effectually repelled the 
charge of " making no provision for their own," are not a 
" dead letter," but a living principle, securing in the majority 
of cases (if this witness speak the truth), ample provision for 
themselves and " those of their own household." The moneyed 
allowance for themselves and wives (independently of house 
rent, table expenses and other items), has several times heen 
25* 



294 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Lw* XIX 

enlarged, but never reduced. And even the collection of 
their liberal salaries, as Dr. Schmucker observes, is not at- 
tended with the same trouble as in other churches, among 
other reasons, because a large income is annually derived from 
general funds. 

A glance at some of these sources of income must suffice. 
The Chartered Fund was established in 1796, at which time 
the previously existing il stock of the preachers' fund" togeth- 
er with the profits of the book concern, were thrown into this 
fund, and the interest of the whole applied to the preachers' 
salaries. This fund was reported the next year (1797) as 
yielding $266£. In January, 1829, it amounted to $27,000, 
and in 1843, Dr. Musgrave stated it at about " thirty thousand 
dollars." Porter's Compend of Methodism (1855) admits 
that its object was " to relieve the difficulties" of the preacher, 
and that it "has afforded partial relief." 

The Centenary Fund, Porter tells us, was established in 
1839, when to commemorate the hundredth year of Methodism, 
" the amount contributed for different objects was estimated 
at $600,000." 

"The Book Concern," Porter informs us, originated in 
1789. "It began," he says, "with about $600 capital, bor- 
rowed of the agent." In less than twenty years (1808) theie 
"was a capital in the ' Concern' of forty-five thousand, dollars" 
"In 1820 a branch was established at Cincinnati; and subse- 
quently depositories in Philadelphia, Richmond, Charleston, 
Pittsburgh, Nashville, Boston, San Francisco, and other 
places, and a weekly paper established in connection with 
most of them.' ' 

The value of the pecuniary interest invested in the New York 
establishment, may be estimated from the fact, that in the 
fire of February, 1836, "when the new buildings and nearly 
all the property were consumed, the estimated loss was two 
hundred and fifty thousand dollars at least." The loss, adds 
Porter, "to the support of sick and needy preachers was well 



Let. XIX. ARE PREACHERS' SALARIES PAID ? 295 

understood." Accordingly, " about $90,000 were realized in 
donations, which with some $25,000 insurance, enabled the 
agents to start anew with encouraging prospects." "The 
capital stock," he adds, "has been gradually increasing." 
" In the New York Concern, it is estimated at $626,406 — and 
at Cincinnati $190,542 — or together, about eight hundred 
and seventeen thousand dollars." Porter is himself a Meth- 
odist Episcopal preacher, and these estimates were published 
in 1855. The last five years have no doubt greatly swelled 
the sum total. Dr. Musgrave in 1842, published a statement 
which he derived "from the office at New York," and which 
was signed by Lane and Sanford, the agents. "The net 
profits of the New York Concern for the year," are there 
stated at $39,738.10 — "or nearly forty thousand dollars" — 
although they had lost in exchange upward of $10,000 
during the twelve months. 

From these facts, some estimate may be formed of the im- 
mense and constantly increasing capital connected with the 
New York and Cincinnati Book Concerns and the other book 
depositories, with their weekly papers ; and on p. 36 of the 
"Discipline," the General Conference is expressly forbidden 
"to appropriate the produce of the Book Concern and the 
Charter Fund to any purpose other than for the benefit of the 
traveling, supernumerary, superannuated and worn-out preach- 
ers, their wives, widows and children." , Besides, every 
preacher is officially a book agent, " who is to see that his 
circuit be duly supplied with books." Thus they carry on 
an immense book trade over the wide extent of our country, 
the profits of which they apply to their own salary and the 
support of their widows and orphans. With near jive thou- 
sand preachers, agents in this business, and " seven or eight 
hundred thousand" members, who are cautioned " not to pur- 
chase any boohs which we publish, of any other persons than 
the aforesaid D. Hitt and T. Ware, and the Methodist minis- 
ters, or such persons as sell them by their consent" (Portrait of 



296 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIX. 

Methodism), the annual profits must be enormous in a con- 
cern of such unparalleled extent.* And all the proceeds are 
appropriated by statute, after retaining the necessary capital 
to carry on the business, to no other purpose than the payment 
of 'the preachers' allowance. In what other denomination is 
there a security like this for ample compensation to their 
ministers for their self-denying toils ? And in the light of 
these facts, how must we regard the outcry of Methodists 
against the clergy of other sects in regard to salary, when in 
fact no branch of the church on earth has a ministry placed 
on such high and independent footing in this respect as their 
own. Not only do they require their members, even in strait- 
ened circumstances, to contribute liberally (it is well known 
that house maids pay four dollars a year), but by a mighty 
machinery, reaching its hundred hands to every nook and 
corner of the land, they manage an unexampled traffic, which 
pours into their treasury its thousands and tens of thousands 
annually. But perhaps the worst feature of the system is the 
agency by which the people who pay this money are excluded 
from all part or lot in its distribution. Preachers pass the 
revenue laws and preachers meet to divide the spoil ; in other 
words, fix the amount of their own salary, and allow them- 
selves the sums they in their wisdom may consider lawfully 
due for their important services. 

In further proof of these statements, we refer to the "Dis- 
cipline." The conference composed exclusively of preachers, 
fix the amount of salary, and the preachers take up the 
collections, which are ordered il to be brought or sent to the 
annual conference' 1 to be disposed of exclusively by preach- 
ers ! It is true the moneys are in the first instance " to be 
lodged with the stewards," who are laymen, and this is an 
apparent exception to the above remarks ; but on examination 

* Seo Dr. Schmucker's letters to Rev. Mr. Young. In 1855, Porter states 
the traveling preachers at 4,814, and the supernumeraries 669. The total 
of members he sets down at 783,000. 



Let. XIX. ARE PREACHERS 1 SALARIES TAID ? 207 

it will be found to be only apparent, not real. "Who nomi- 
nate the stewards? The preachers exclusively. Who elect 
them ? The quarterly conference. Who compose this con- 
ference ? Preachers, who are self-appointed; " exhorters," 
appointed exclusively by the preachers; "leaders" also ap- 
pointed only by the preachers; and "stewards," nominated 
by the preachers. This is the body which eleots the stew- 
ard, after he is nominated by the preacher ! This is one 
feature of Dr. Bangs' "elective system!" We respectfully 
submit that it would be quite as republican and fair, and cer- 
tainly much more open and candid, for the preacher to take 
the appointment of the steward directly into his own hands, 
or himself perform the duties of treasurer of the circuit. 
These stewards, be it also remembered, are bound to pay the 
preachers just the sums they have awarded to themselves for 
quarterage ; and the surplus, if any, goes into the hands of 
the preachers in conference assembled; and one of the 
"duties" of the steward (on the third "neglect" of which 
he may be excommunicated), is "to be subject to the bishops, 
the presiding elder, and the elder, deacon, and traveling- 
preachers of the circuit." So that he is not only the crea- 
ture of their will, but completely under their rod. 

It is replied, however, with great indignation, " that not a 
cent can be had for table expenses and house rent without the 
consent and authority of a lay committee." But not to 
insist upon the fact that the conference (of preachers) can 
dispense with this cQmmittee whenever it pleases them — we 
inquire, Who are the members of this lay committee ? The 
stewards! It is "a committee of stewards;" and, as we 
have just shown, might with about the same propriety be "a 
committee of preachers !" 

Again : it is argued that the preacher's salary cannot be 
rated at six hundred dollars, because u it is impossible to tell 
how much such a committee, in any given case, will allow for 
house rent and table expenses," and it is even suggested that 



298 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIX. 

they may refuse to allow any thing. But what saith the 
Discipline ? " It shall be the duty of said committee to 
make an estimate of the amount necessary to furnish fuel 
and table expenses." — " And the stewards shall provide, \>y 
such means as they may devise, to meet such expenses, in 
money or otherwise." But the rule before referred to expressly 
declares, that "in case of neglect of DUTIES of any kind," or 
" disobedience to the order and discipline of the church," the 
guilty person is, on the third offense, to be " cut off," whether 
he be steward or member of committee. They are bound, 
on pain of excommunication, to make an estimate of "the 
amount necessary," not any amount they may please to allow 
the preacher, but that precise amount which, according to 
ordinary rates of expenditure, is " necessary " for fuel and 
table expenses, and "provide to meet such expenses in money 
or otherwise." In view of such facts, it is folly to talk of this 
committee having " power to allow sixty cents instead of six 
hundred dollars ! I" And to make assurance doubly sure, it 
is declared to be " the duty of the presiding elders and 
preachers to use their influence to carry the rules respecting 
building and renting houses for the preachers, into effect." 
" And it is recommended to the annual conference to make a 
special inquiry of their members respecting this part of their 
duty." The preachers are to " use their influence !" "What 
kind or degree of influence the preachers and the conference 
are empowered to exert over the stewards, when it is known 
that if they " neglect their duty n in making up the preachers' 
salaries, and securing them comfortable, well-furnished houses, 
on the third offense " they must be cut off," except they re- 
pent and mend their ways, it is not difficult to understand ! ! 

In speaking of the position and prospects of the traveling 
clergy, it is common to represent them as " abandoning almost 
every earthly interest in entering upon an itinerant career, 
and submitting to labors and trials that few have nerve 
enough to endure."* Yery different, however, is the judg- 
* Porter's Compendium, p. 377. 



Let. XIX. ARE PREACHERS SALARIES PAID ? 299 

merit of the Baltimore Keformers, or Methodist Protestants. 
" We are of the opinion/' they say, " that a system which at 
once elevates men from the various departments of humble 
life, and from a state of dependence to sovereign rule ; from 
comparative ignorance to the means of improvement and 
knowledge, so far from being a system of sacrifice and self- 
denial, is one of great enjoyment, and it sometimes proves a 
system of emolument." This is the verdict of men who had 
themselves been Episcopal Methodists. As preachers they 
had tasted of the cup of " labors and trials that few have nerve 
to endure !" 

Such then is the poverty of the traveling ministry of 
Methodism. Six or seven hundred dollars secured in com- 
pensation of labors, for the right performance of which there 
has not been any preparatory expenditure worthy of notice, is 
no mean provision for the good things of this life. In most 
other denominations, the intended minister is required to pass 
through a course of training, from seven to twelve years in 
duration, in which he must expend a small estate, before he 
can enter upon the duties of his profession j and if, in the 
providence of God, he is disabled by disease or accident after 
the few first years or weeks of his ministry, he must resign 
his charge, and of course his means of subsistence, to some 
more favored occupant. Not so the preacher of Methodism. 
After the expiration of the few first years or weeks of his 
ministry, even though reduced by the visitation of Heaven 
to a state of utter helplessness, he is entitled to a clear income 
for himself and wife of two hundred dollars, or the interest 
of three thousand three hundred and thirty-three dollars ; and 
his children are also provided for. It may be questioned 
whether any man, minister or layman, would be considered 
far from the pathway of wealth, who, in four years, or as it 
may be, in four days, with scarce any previous expenditure, 
and with no risk of pecuniary loss, could realize an annual 
income of equal magnitude. And should the preacher survive 



300 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIAXISM. Let: Xl.v: 

for fifty years in a state of incapacity, and his wife be also 
spared, they will be entitled to draw the sum of ten thousand 
dollars, besides the support of their children. 

On the whole, it is obvious that the Methodist clerical 
orders possess very considerable financial skill. This we 
think has been fully proved in the previous discussion, and 
may be made still more plain by one or two additional facts. 
u It is contrary to the Methodist economy to build houses with 
pews to sell or rent." But, as has been well remarked by 
my correspondent in Baltimore, "more money is actually 
paid by many families in their weekly tax at class meeting 
than they would be required to pay for a pew in one of our 
churches. Multitudes are deceived by the smallness of the 
periodical sum, and have no idea of the amount in the course 
of the year." * Besides, there .is another very important 
reason why they are opposed to the pew system. If the people 
owned the pews they could control the house, which would be 
an utter abomination in the eyes of the preachers ! The con- 
ference would no longer have the power to use the property 
for their own purposes, contrary to the unanimous wish of 
the contributors and real owners. Therefore pews would be 
a dangerous innovation ! 

In connection with these statements, let the reader recur 
to the evidence adduced in a foregoing Letter, that the owner- 
ship of every Methodist church and parsonage is vested in 
the conference. The authorized deed makes no mention of 
the particular congregation as a party in the transaction, but 
only of the Methodist Episcopal church in the United States; 

* The following facts came 'within my own knowledge. A person who 
had been in the habit of worshiping with Presbyterians, united with the 
Methodists, together with his family. He very candidly acknowledged that 
whereas lie used to pay six or seven dollars annual pew rent, ho was taxed 
by the Methodist preachers at the rate of a dollar per head per quarter for 
himself and family ; amounting during the year to upward of twenty dollars. 
And he very honestly declared, the '" preachers " should hold their peace on 
that topic. 



Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 301 

and the principle has been actually decided by the Supreme 
Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of an appeal, by a minority 
of trustees or agents of the conference, from the verdict of 
a jury previously given in favor of the majority both of the 
congregation and of the trustees, who had joined the Protest- 
ant Methodists. The Supreme Court, therefore, has settled 
the principle that a minority, however small, of the faithful 
servants of the conference, may, on the ground of the only 
authorized form of deed, dispossess a majority, however large, 
of their property in a church or parsonage. Submission to 
the sovereign authority of a conference of preachers is the 
only legal title to funds thus vested. " It is therefore unde- 
niable, that if every member and every trustee of a church 
thus deeded, were to regard any future measures of the 
conference as tyrannical, and should desire to withdraw and 
introduce other preachers, the conference could turn the key 
on them, and they would be compelled to submit." In propor- 
tion, therefore, as the members of the church secede, and 
vacate the houses and lands which they have occupied, will 
an immense and accumulating revenue of this sort be placed 
in the hands of the preachers composing the conference. 
The Protestant Methodists may get the men, but the Epis- 
copal Methodists hold fast the money. 



LETTER XX. 

ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE^-THEIR CURIOUS ORIGIN AND 
PROMINENT FEATURES — WESLEY'S AURICULAR CONFES- 
SION, Ac. 

He v. Sir — We have had occasion in previous Letters to 
mention repeatedly the "Book of Discipline" of the Method- 
ist Episcopal church, for the purpose of directing attention 
to some of its singular statements. We are not done with 
26 



302 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XX. 

the subject; but as it is one of considerable interest, we pro- 
pose to confer upon it the distinction of a separate investiga- 
tion. This seems the more proper, as it is but repaying a 
debt of long standing, and due to Methodism for the notice 
she has been pleased to bestow upon the Presbyterian Con- 
fession of Faith. 

XIV. Review op the Articles and Book op Disci- 
pline. 

1. The origin of the worh. It is neither more nor less 
than the Liturgy and Articles of the Church of England, in a 
mutilated condition. The original was formed, as Dr. Miller 
tells us, on the basis of five Romish missals, or prayer books, 
which had been in use in the same number of popish bish- 
oprics. This liturgy at first contained a number of things 
grossly popish ; and even after undergoing a " considerable 
purgation," as Dr. M. has it, by Calvin and others, still re- 
tained a "number of articles, adopted from the missals of 
the Church of Rome, which exceedingly grieved the more 
pious and evangelical part of the church, but which the Queen 
(Elizabeth) and her clergy refused to exclude."* These facts 
will fully account for the savor of popery which, in previous 
Letters, we detected in the form of administering the Lord's 
Supper and in some other particulars. 

The book, in its original form, was entirely too Calvinistic 
for Mr. "Wesley; hence he thought proper to expurgate four- 
teen of its doctrinal articles. Among those rejected are the 
fifteenth, which asserts " that Christ alone was without sin f 
and the eighteenth, which condemns the assertion that " every 
man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth," 
and which further affirms " that holy Scripture doth set forth 
only the name of Jesus Christ whereby men must be saved." 
These erasures are very suggestive. 

* Calvin, in one of his letters, says it contained many " tolerablles 
ineptias" i. e. "tolerable fooleries;" tolerable, he moans, for children! 



Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 303 

2. Sympathy with fundamental errors. After what Las 
been said, it is not at all surprising to find Mr. Wesley 
shaking hands with the Papists in the following cordial style : 
" Can nothing be done, even allowing us on both sides to re- 
tain our own opinions, for the softening our hearts toward 
each other." " My dear friend, consider I am not persuad- 
ing you to leave or change your religion," &c. " We ought, 
without this endless jangling about opinions, to provoke one 
another to love and to good works. Let the points wherein 
we differ stand aside. Here are enough wherein we agree. 
brethren, let us not still fall out by the way!" (Letter to a 
Roman Catholic.) 

We have elsewhere quoted the admission of their greatest 
historian, Dr. Stevens, viz. that their " Articles" contain 
nothing which directly condemns " either Calvinism or Uni- 
versalism" — the former of which they seem to regard as the 
" heresy of all heresies I" In regard to the Unitarians, they 
are also very liberal. Thus, in vol. x. p. 354, of their 
"Ladies' Repository," Rev. B. F. Teft, D. D. the editor, 
holds the following language in regard to the late Dr. Chan- 
ning, the great champion of Socinianism : " Some will not 
allow Channing to have been a Christian, because he was a 
Unitarian preacher. Such a man, however, can well dispense 
with the good opinion of such contemptible bigots, to what- 
ever fellowship they belong, when he has been followed to 
heaven's gate with the admiration of two hemispheres. I do 
sincerely wish, both for these critics and myself, as good a 
seat in paradise as I believe is now occupied by that best of 
all good and great men ever raised up by Massachusetts." 

This is the sort of religious instruction which the oracles 
of Methodism prepare for the wives and children of the 
thousands of families which acknowledge them as spiritual 
teachers. 

A curious illustration of the manner in which Methodism 
uses fanaticism and falsehood, is found in Millerism. Thus 



304 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XX. 

Porter, whose " Compend" is highly lauded by bishops and 
others, speaks of " the general revival from the year 1840 to 
1844," as follows : " The doctrine of Christ's second coming 
had considerable effect." u Many feared it." " The mistake 
had no other influence in this regard, than to prompt them to 
seek religion then." He admits that Millerism afterward 
" became identified with so many other heresies, it poisoned 
all who came under its influence, and interposed one of the 
greatest obstacles to religion," &c. " Notwithstanding," he 
adds, " there was much wheat gathered." For example, he 
tells us " that in 1843 the net increase of the Methodist 
Episcopal church was 154,634, and in 1844 it was 102,831." 
Yet he admits that in three years (1844-1847) they " suffered 
a net decrease of more than fifty thousand members." * 
Such is the testimony of Porter, a " prophet of their own." 
Still he thinks the u proportion that fell away was not greater 
than is usual," and that he can account " for the appalling 
decrease without disparaging the character of the work in the 
least!" 

3. The Methodist "Articles and Discipline" came down, 
as we have shown, in regular " succession " from the English 
" Articles and Liturgy of the Established Church." The fact 
that the original was submitted to Calvin and other divines 
of the Continent, and thus purged of sundry of its popish 
"fooleries," may perhaps also account, in part, for the strong 
Calvinism of many of its doctrinal statements, and which 
contradict and overthrow its Arminianism. 

4. Statement, of the origin of the Methodist Episcopal church 

* Rev. Parsons Cooke tells of a Rev. Gr. Fox, a presiding elder, who 
" said he had made Miller's theory a subject of prayer and study; and that 
in answer to prayer he had received as clear a witneas of the Spirit in favor 
of that theory, as he had of his own justification ! He traveled through 
his district, having access to all Methodist pulpits, preaching everywhere 
that the end of the world was coming in 1843 ; and he employed his pen 
with great industry, and his writings were abundantly published in the 
Methodist periodicals." 



Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 305 

in America. We are told on page 14 of the Book of Dis- 
cipline, that " Mr. Wesley, preferring the Episcopal mode of 
church government, solemnly set apart, by the imposition of 
his hands and prayer, Thomas Coke to the episcopal office ; 
and having delivered to him letters of episcopal orders, com- 
missioned and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury to 
the same episcopal office/' Now besides the intrinsic absurd- 
ity already pointed out, of a priest ordaining a bishop, and 
the exceeding doubtfulness of the matter of fact, that Wesley, 
who declared he would rather be called " fool, knave, villain," 
than bishop, should designate another to bear the office and 
title he so much abhorred ; besides all this, observe with 
what authority the doctors of Methodism speak when writing 
for the special use and benefit of the sect. Mark their 
language — "episcopal mode of church government " — "epis- 
copal office " — " letters of episcopal orders " — " episcopal 
ordination," &c. But with what commendable modesty 
does Dr. Bangs relate the same story in the Appendix to 
Buck's Theological Dictionary? How do these proud pre- 
tensions dwindle, when about to be laid more fairly before 
the public? The Doctor tells us, "that being assisted by 
other presbyters of the Church of England, by prayer and 
imposition of hands, he (Wesley) set apart Thomas Coke, a 
presbyter of said church, as a superintendent of the Methodist 
societies in America" (not a word about his being made a 
bishop, or receiving the episcopal office). Again : " Mr. As- 
bury being first elected by the unanimous voice of the 
preachers, was ordained by Dr. Coke, first to the office of 
deacon, then elder, and then superintendent or bishop." In 
the Book of Discipline, the statement says nothing about 
" superintendent ;" it is nothing but episcopal mode of church 
government, episcopal office, episcopal orders, episcopal 
ordination. But here in the Appendix to Buck, it is all 
superintendent, and the poor bishop comes limping in the 
rear, in the shape of an alias, just as though he were a per- 
26* 



306 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XX 

sonage of almost no importance. The very term from which 
the church derives the name " episcopal/' is introduced so 
modestly that it might be supposed a thing of almost no 
importance, and not a word is uttered of those high-sounding 
titles enumerated above. 

If, moreover, in the Methodist system, the terms bishop 
and superintendent be synonymous, and both imply merely 
that their possessor is an elder, who on account of age or 
talents has received from man a more extensive superintend- 
ence of ecclesiastical affairs than ordinarily belongs to the 
eldership, why all this pompous talk of " episcopal ordina- 
tion/' " episcopal office," " letters of episcopal orders," &c? 
Why this puerile affectation of high-sounding titles — this 
ludicrous mimicry of the English hierarchy ? How would it 
be more absurd to speak of Presbyterian episcopacy, since 
every pastor superintends a portion of the church of Christ ? 
And especially, is there not something profane in the 
repetition of the solemn Divine rite of ordination (the New 
Testament knows nothing about " consecration to the minis- 
try,"), whenever an elder is appointed to a larger sphere of 
superintendence than formerly he occupied ? With about as 
much propriety might every Presbyterian minister be re-or- 
dained, whenever he is removed from a narrow to an extensive 
circuit of influence. Whether therefore we consider the 
Methodist bishop as holding an office of Divine origin, essen- 
tially distinct from and superior to that of elder — or regard 
these offices as identical, with only enlarged powers received 
of men on the part of the bishop, it is obvious that the whole 
subject is involved in a labyrinth of inconsistencies. 

5. Methodist liberality. On page 27 we have a rule for- 
bidding " the doing ordinary work, buying or selling on the 
Sabbath," but no prohibition of amusements on that day. 
This indeed might be regarded merely as an oversight, were 
it not that we have line upon line, and precept upon precept, 
in regard to other matters of much less importance. 



Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 307 

On page 27 we find the following : " It is expected of all 
who continue in these societies, that they should evidence 
their desire of salvation." Very well. But how are they to 
evidence this desire ? Among other things, the fourth para- 
graph from the above reads as follows : " By doing good, 
especially to them that are of the household of faith, or 
groaning to be so ; employing them preferably to others, buying 
one of another, helping each other in business" — and this, be 
it remembered, is one of those "general rules" which, on the 
next page, are said " to be all taught of God," even in his 
written word ; and '•' which his Spirit writes on truly wakened 
hearts" "If there be any among us," adds the Book of 
Discipline, u who habitually break any of them, we will ad- 
monish him of the error of his ways, we will bear with him 
for a season. But then if he repent not, he hath no more 
place among us. We have delivered our own souls!" In 
other words, if any Methodist shall employ, habitually, any 
person not " of the household of faith, or groaning to be so," 
or shall habitually buy of such a person preferably to a 
brother Methodist ; if he repent not, he is turned out — that 
the conscientious preachers may " deliver their own souls I" 

In " some directions " given by Mr. Wesley to the " Band 
Societies," in 1744, the members are required to "attend 
constantly on all the ordinances of God;" and the fourth 
subdivision under this head, is — " to observe as days of fast- 
ing or abstinence, all Fridays in the year." To fast every 
Friday one of the ordinances of G-od ! Their good old grand- 
mother of Borne has an " ordinance " requiring all genuine 
sons of the church to eat no meat on Friday ; but where to 
open my Bible to find such an ordinance, is an entire mys- 
tery. The blessed Redeemer enjoined fasting, but specified no 
particular time for the discharge of the duty ; but Methodism 
would be wiser, and specifies one day in each week ! 

6. Practice against theory. On page 113 it is said, "No 
person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper among us, who 



308 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XX. 

is guilty of any practice for which we would exclude a mem- 
ber of our church." But from page 65 we learn that one of 
the grounds of excluding members of the Methodist church, 
is, "removing from one circuit to another without a note 
of recommendation from the preacher." But the case is 
materially altered when persons are enticed away from other 
churches, without any certificate or note of recommendation. 
They are freely and with open arms admitted, and that too 
in many instances where they would be denied, even if they 
requested a note of recommendation. Indeed, the usage of 
Methodism in this particular is subversive of every thing 
like order and discipline in the Christian church. 

7. Reverently obey the bishops. " Will you reverently 
obey your chief ministers ?" is a question put at the ordina- 
tion of elders, and another of the same import at the 
ordination of deacons. There is a considerable improvement 
practiced at Rome. There they kneel and reverently kiss 
the toe of his holiness ! See this identical form of expression 
in the Bull of Pope Innocent Till, for exterminating the 
Waldenses — " Reverently to obey the apostolical mandates," 
&c. viz. the bloody edicts of his antichristian majesty ! 

But perhaps the most curious illustration of the reverence 
and obedience exacted of the lower orders of the Methodist 
ministry, is found on pages 57, 58. In answer to the ques- 
tion, " What is the duty of a preacher ?" we have twelve 
specifications, and among others, "Be diligent" — "Let your 
motto be, Holiness to the Lord" — "Be ashamed of nothing 
but sin" — " You have nothing to do but to save souls; there- 
fore spend and be spent in this work" — "Save as many as 
you can" — "It is your duty to employ your time in the 
manner in which we direct ; in preaching and visiting from 
house to house ; in reading, meditation and prayer." When 
we had read thus far, we almost involuntarily exclaimed, 
admirable ! What could be more scriptural and excellent ! 
But the very next sentence was a dead fly in the ointment — 



Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 309 

"Above all, if you labor with us in the Lord's vineyard, it 
is needful you should do that part of the work which we 
advise, at those times and places which we judge most for his 
glory." Above all! Above preaching, and visiting, and 
reading, and meditation, and prayer! Above spending and 
being spent for Christ, and holiness, and the salvation of 
souls ! Above all these, " reverently obey your chief minis- 
ters." Truly, it would seem that in the Methodist catalogue 
of ministerial virtues, to obey is the highest attainment of 
Christian perfection— the pearl of great price — the summum 
bonum — the one thing needful — not only " better than sacri- 
fice," but better than holiness and salvation ! Rebellion is as 
the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idol- 
atry ! In the light of these facts we may readily credit the 
testimony of one who had himself been a Methodist, " that 
nearly all of the inferior clergy are kept in a state of spiritual 
bondage, so that, on many occasions, they dare not speak or act 
as the Scriptures prescribe and their consciences dictate, lest they 
should offend the men in power, and be chastised by a remove 
to a disadvantageous circuit, by a breaking down in worldly 
business, or by excommunication." An excellent school, 
doubtless, in which the refractory may " learn obedience by 
the things they suifer." So also Mr. M'Caine, a Protestant 
Methodist, who had been long one of their preachers, says : 
" In upward of fifty years, we have known but one traveling 
preacher expelled for false doctrine, and but few for immoral- 
ity. But we have heard of very many who were expelled for 
opposing the bishop." 

8. Wesley' s Auricular Confession. Although omitted in the 
latest edition of "the Discipline" (1856), the following rules 
for '/Band Societies" as organized by Mr. Wesley, were for- 
merly a part of that book. " A band consists of two, three 
or four believers, who have confidence in each other." Only 
it is particularly observed that "in one of these bands, all 
must be men, or all women; and all married or all unmarried." 



S10 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XX. 

The wisdom of this precaution will appear directly. The 
fourth article on which the members of the " band" agree, is 
" to speak each of us in order, freely and plainly, the true 
state of our souls, with the faults we have committed in tem- 
pers, words or actions (in " thought, word or deed," Wesley 
originally wrote it), and the temptations we have felt since 
our last meeting." The sixth article is "to desire some per- 
son among us to speak his own state first, and then ash the 
rest in order as many and as searching questions as may be, 
concerning their state, sins and temptations." They manage 
this matter a little differently at Rome, but it is doubtful 
whether they have a better confessional than this. But there 
is more to come : among u the questions proposed to one hefore 
he is admitted" to the band, we find the following: "Is it 
your desire and design to be on this and all other occasions 
entirely open, so as to speak without disguise and without re- 
serve." Wesley wrote the latter part originally as follows : 
t( So as to speak everything that is in your heart, without 
exception, without disguise, and without reserve!" Popery 
herself demands no more thorough confession than this. And 
besides, the following questions are required to be asked " at 
every meeting," viz. " Wliat known sins have you committed 
since our last meeting? What particular temptations have 
you met with ?" After what we have seen, it is not surpris- 
ing that Mr. Wesley should write a highly commendatory 
life of Mr. De Renty (a Roman Catholic), nor that the fol- 
lowing passages should proceed from his pen: "One day he 
visited a person, who from groundless suspicion had cruelly 
used his wife. Mr. De Renty accosted him with such lan- 
guage, that he was persuaded at length to go to confession! ! 
which he had not done in twelve years before." And of De 
Renty himself, he says — " He made his confession (to a priest) 
almost every day till his death ! !" This biography of a thor- 
ough papist, Wesley placed in his "Christian Library," and 
recommended to his followers. " He had great respect (he 



Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 311 

adds) for holy persons, especially for priests. Whenever lio 
met them, he saluted them with profound humility: and in 
his travels, he would alight off his horse to do it." " And 
without reply or disputing, with the utmost respect and sub- 
mission, he exactly followed the order of his director" (or 
confessor). The reader will recollect — "Reverently obey 
your chief ministers! !" 

9. On page 105, infants are called " elect children" — im- 
plying that as, according to Arminians, election brings with 
it non-election, there are non-elect infants, some of whom may 
be in hell! The use Methodists make of the false charge of 
" infant damnation " brought against Calvinists, was noticed 
in a former Letter. " Thus," says Dr. Musgrave, " thousands 
of uninformed people are persuaded that Presbyterians do 
verily believe * * * that children not a span long are in 
hell!" If we thought these "accusers of the brethren" 
really believed their own statements, we should at least feel 
pity for their want of information. The Rev. Parsons Cook, 
however, says : " We have been told by a seceding Methodist 
minister, that it is well known to him that Methodist minis- 
ters generally understand, as well as we do, that this doctrine 
is not preached by us ; but that they purposely keep alive the 
imputation because of the advantage which they have from it." 

Under all the circumstances, there is much reason to be- 
lieve that this testimony is true. Yet their five thousand 
preachers and hundreds of thousands of members are busied 
day and night in circulating such representations of Calvinism 
as the following : " Moloch caused only children to pass 
through the fire, and that fire was soon quenched ; or, the 
corruptible body being consumed, its torment was at an end. 
But God, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done 
good or evil, causes not only children a span long, but the 
parents also, to pass through the fire that shall never be 
quenched, * * * and the body being now incorruptible, will 
be ever consuming and never consumed."* 
* Doct. Tracts, p. 173. 



312 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XX. 

We now bring this expose of u the Difficulties of Arminian 
Methodism" to a close. Not because the theme is exhausted, 
but because under the fourteen distinct heads already stated, 
enough has been said, if we are not greatly mistaken, to sat- 
isfy every impartial mind of the true character of that system. 
Is it possible that the God of truth has adopted such a scheme 
of doctrine and discipline as this to spread Scripture holiness 
through the world ! Is it probable that He who prayed, 
" Sanctify them by thy truth, " is the author and patron of 
Arminian Methodism ? We speak of course of the system as 
distinguished by its peculiarities from the doctrine and gov- 
ernment revealed in the Scriptures. We have not questioned 
the fact, that so far as Methodism teaches certain great truths 
common to all Christians, she has done good — neither is it 
denied that Unitarianism and even Popery, embrace many 
valuable truths, but marred and enfeebled by hateful corrup- 
tions. To a certain extent, the same is true of Arminian 
Methodism. And the blind spirit of violence and misrepre- 
sentation which her leading writers exhibit toward Presbyte- 
rians and other Calvinistic bodies, is only a bitter fruit of her 
delusions. "There are many truly excellent men in the 
ministry of the Methodist Episcopal church, and thousands 
of truly pious persons in her communion"* — but it is also 
true that the improprieties and excesses which have come 
under review, are not commonly approved nor countenanced 
by that class of Methodists. 

If the Scriptures were designed to be our pattern in all 
things pertaining to truth and godliness — if the decisions of 
reason founded upon the word of God, demand our respect, 
next to the Inspired Oracles themselves, we are compelled to 
believe that much remains to be done to fashion Arminian 
Methodism agreeably to " the pattern shewed in the mount." 
And whatever else may have been done or left undone, one 
thing, we think, has been fully established, viz. that there 
are vulnerable points connected with the Arminian scheme, 

* Dr. Musgrave. 



Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 313 

■which are far from justifying the air of arrogance and tone 
of denunciation so common with its modern advocates. 

Much more might be said of the strange methods they often 
adopt to advance their sectarian projects — their garbled quo- 
tations, their unscrupulous denunciations, their unmitigated 
exclusiveness, their spurious zeal in pressing their ministra- 
tions upon localities abundantly supplied with evangelical 
preaching, (only not Methodism!) their great joy, not so 
much "over the conversion of the ninety and nine" impeni- 
tent, as "over the conversion of one Presbyterian sinner/' 
their gladness when they succeed in making a raid upon 
Calvinistic, and even upon other Arminian churches. " How 
frequently," to use the language of " the pastoral letter" of 
the Presbytery of Lexington, Ya. "in the midst of their 
charitable professions, have even their pulpits resounded with 
severe denunciations against us, representing us as a set of 
hypocritical formalists — as holding doctrines which came from 
hell and lead to hell. Have they not times innumerable 
reviled our ministers as avaricious hirelings," &c. But to 
enlarge upon such topics as these, would swell our work be- 
yond all reasonable bounds. 
27 



APPENDIX I. 



FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 

In this Appendix we propose to examine certain references, which 
appear in a popular Methodist tract, entitled, " A Dialogue between a 
Predestinarian and his Friend." This tract, a favorite instrument of 
sectarian zeal, was written by Mr. Wesley, and it is cited by Drs. 
Bangs, Fisk, and others, with such frequency, and its blunders are 
copied and circulated with so much confidence and industry, as to 
justify an investigation of its merits. Blindly folio wing the authority 
of this publication, these learned gentlemen have quoted the chapters 
of the Assembly's Catechism, and thus exposed themselves to the 
correction of any well-instructed Sabbath scholar. 

This publication we suppose to be one of those methods by which 
the father of Methodism purposed "to stop the mouths of Calvin- 
ists." (Works, vol. iii. p. 405.) It is graced with the following line: 
"Oat of thine own mouth!" The truth of the motto will appear as 
we pass along. We will first notice the references to the Assembly's 
Confession, or Catechism, as they call it. 

Friend. " Sir, I have heard that you make God the author of all 
sin, and the destroyer of the greater part of mankind without mercy." 

Predestinarian. "I deny it; I only say, 'God did from all eter- 
nity unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.' " (Assembly's 
Catechism, chap. 3.) 

Here it is supposed that we are convicted " out of our own mouth," 
of making "God the author of all sin." But besides that the very 
next words in the Confession are — "yet so as neither is God the author 
of sin," — we refer to the Confession itself, and to the uniform testi- 
mony of Calvinistic writers, to prove that they maintain the distinction 
between the efficient and the permissive decrees of God. And as to our 
holding that "the greater part of mankind are -destroyed without 
mercy," the quotation from the Confession says nothing upon that 
subject ; and until the proof is adduced, it must be considered as a 
groundless assertion. 

F. " Does sin necessarily come to pass ?" 

P. "Undoubtedly. For ' the almighty power of God extends itself 
to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men.'" (Assem. Cat. 
chap. 5.) 

(314) 



FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 315 

This extract is erroneous and unfair in two respects : 1. It is given 
as a continuous quotation, whereas two whole lines are omitted, which 
are essential to the sense. 2. The Confession does not say, "the 
almighty power of God extends itself to the first fall," &c. There is no 
such sentiment in the passage, which is as follows : " The almighty 
power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest 
themselves in his providence, that it (his providence) extendeth itself," 
&c. We greatly fear that this method of stopping the mouths of Cal- 
vinists will not redound to the honor of its author and advocates. 

We next examine the references to Calvin's Institutes : 

I. (Book 1, chap. 16, sec. 8.) "Nothing is more absurd than to 
think any thing at all is done but by the ordination of God." Allen, 
whose translation is used by Watson, renders it as follows : " Nothing 
could be more absurd than for any thing to happen independently of the 
ordination of God, because it would happen at random, or by chance." 
The object of Wesley was to convict Calvin of teaching that sin was so 
ordained as that God was its author. But besides the mistranslation, 
"by the ordination of God," as though that were the efficient cause 
of all things, instead of " independently of the ordination of God;" just 
six lines farther down, Calvin quotes Augustine with approbation, as 
proving that " God is the supreme and first (or highest) cause of all 
things, because nothing happens but by his command or permission. He 
does not suppose God," continues Calvin, "to remain an idle spectator, 
determining to permit any thing" (and every thing), that is, to look 
listlessly on and resign the helm of the universe to be controlled by 
contingence or chance. "There is an intervention of actual volition 
(that is, a will to permit,) which otherwise could never be considered 
as a cause." The reader can now judge whether Calvin meant to 
teach that God is the author or efficient cause of sin, and whether the 
above quotation is consistent with truth. 

II. (Book 1, chap. 15 (16), sec. 3.) "Every action and motion of 
every creature is so governed by the hidden counsel of God, that nothing 
can come to pass but what was ordained by him." The following is 
the translation of Allen : "In the creatures there is no erratic power, 
or action, or motion ; but they are so governed by the secret counsel 
of G-odthat nothing can happen but what is subject to his knowledge 
and decreed by his will ;" that is, as explained above, nothing can hap- 
pen but by his command or permission. Calvin is speaking of " the stars, 
and comets, and signs of heaven," and rebukes "immoderate and super- 
stitious fears," as though these "creatures had of themselves power to 
hurt us, or could fortuitously injure us." And though his language 



316 APPENDIX I. 

admits of being extended to intelligent moral agents, yet as explained 
above by himself, it is obviously perverted from its original and true 
meaning. 

III. (Book 1, chap. 15 (16), sec. 8.) " The wills of men are so gov- 
erned by the will of God, that they are carried on straight to the mark 
which he has foreordained." This is designed to show that Calvin 
taught that God works on the wills of men, so as to work wickedness in 
the wicked, and so must be the author of sin. But look a moment at the 
language of Calvin in its connection : " Not only the heavens and the 
earth, but also the deliberations and volitions of men are so governed 
by his providence, as to be directed to the end appointed by it. What 
then? You will say, does nothing happen fortuitously or contingently?" 
He had set himself to prove that there could "be no such thing as for- 
tuitous contingencc," or chance (sec. 4) ; and in the passage referred to 
by the author of the tract, he was showing that not even the minds, 
thoughts and volitions of men are exerted "independently of God, 
whilst they cannot even speak a word but what he chooses." (Sec. 6.) 
But what has this to do with the author of sin, or the cause of wicked- 
ness in heart and life ? How does God's holding the hearts of men in 
his hand, and turning them as rivers of water are turned (that is, 
overrruling, restraining, and limiting their exercises, and especially 
their wickedness); how does this prove, as the tract affirms, that " all 
must do just what theydo,"so that they are deprived of liberty of will 
and free agency ? The passage is shamefully misrepresented and per- 
verted from its plain and obvious meaning, to teach what Calvin never 
taught, as will yet more fully appear. The scope of the passage is to 
overthrow the atheistical notion of fortune or chance. Not a sparrow 
falls, nor a thought or volition of the mind arises, but what is under 
the superintendence of the Divine Providence. God has his own ap- 
pointed ends in his all-wise plan, to promote, even by the wickedness 
of the wicked, and therefore it does not occur by chance, but by his 
permission, purposing so to control and " restrain" it, as to make it 
subserve his own wise and holy purposes. This is the meaning of 
Calvin. "Augustine," says Calvin, "makes the following correct dis- 
tinction — 'that they sin, proceeds from themselves; that in sinning they 
perform this or that particular action, is from the power of God, who 
divideth the darkness according to his pleasure.' " Book 2, chap. 4, 
sec. 4. Is this the same as saying, " their sins proceed from God?" 

IV. (Book 3, chap. 24, sec. 8.) "I will not scruple to own that 
the will of God lays a necessity on all things, and that every thing he 
wills necessarily comes to pass." 



FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 317 

The reference is probably to a passage in chap. 23, sec. 8. "I 
shall not hesitate to confess with Augustine, that the will of God is the 
necessity of things, and that what he has willed necessarily comes to 
pass, as those things are really about to happen which he has foreseen." 

To say that men are under a necessity of committing sin, is, in the 
common popular acceptation of the terms, both absurd and impious , 
and this is what Wesley labors to prove against Calvin. But it is a 
very important question — "What did Calvin mean by necessity?" 
This we discover by comparing other passages, thus — " A distinction 
has prevailed in the schools, of three hinds of liberty : the first, freedom 
from necessity ; the second, freedom from sin ; the third, freedom from 
misery; of which the first is naturally inherent in man, so that nothing 
can ever deprive him of it; the other two are lost by sin. This dis- 
tinction," adds Calvin, "J readily admit, except that it improperly 
confounds necessity with coaction. And the wide difference between 
these things will appear in another place." (Book 2, chap. 2, sec. 5, 
&c.) "When man subjected himself to this necessity, he was not de- 
prived of will, but of soundness of will." " Augustine thus expresses 
himself: s The will being changed for the worse, I know not by what 
corrupt and surprising means, is itself the author of the necessity to which 
it is subject,' &c. Afterward he says that we are oppressed with a 
yoke, but no other than that of a voluntary servitude," &c. &c. Again, 
Book 2, chap. 5, sec. 5. "Let them not suppose themselves excused 
by necessity, in which very thing they have a most evident cause of their 
condemnation." "For if we are bound by our own passions, which are 
under the government of sin, so that we are not at liberty to obey our 
Father, there is no reason why we should plead this necessity in our 
defense, the criminality of which is within ourselves, and must be im- 
puted to us." Book 2, chap. 8, sec. 3. " Nor can we pretend to 
excuse ourselves by our want of ability — our inability is our own 
fault." Ibid. From these passages it is evident that the meaning of 
the term "necessity" in Calvin's work, is the same with certainty, or 
what Edwards calls " philosophical necessity." (Edwards on the Will, 
part 1, sec. 3.) 

That Calvin is greatly misrepresented in this tract, as teaching ne- 
cessity in such a sense as " that all things come to pass by the effica- 
cious and irresistible will of God," is further proved by his represent- 
ing men as under the restraining influence of Divine grace. Thus 
Book 2, chap. 2, sec. 3. "Should the Lord permit the minds of men 
to give up the reins to every lawless passion, there certainly would not 
be an individual in the world who would not evince all the crimes for 
27* 



318 APPENDIX I. 

•which Paul condemns human nature." This does not look like im- 
pelling the •will of man to sin by inevitable necessity ! ! Indeed the 
early reformers seem to have been in the habit of employing the term 
necessity to mean "certainty." Thus Luther (de servo arbitrio, 
translated by Milner, Ecc. Hist. vol. v.): "So long as the operative 
grace of God is absent from us, everything we do has in it a mixture 
of evil ; and therefore of necessity our works do not avail to salvation. 
Here," continues Luther, "I do not mean a necessity of compulsion, 
but a necessity as to the certainty of the event." Indeed in the very 
passage to which we suppose reference is made in the tract, Calvin 
explains the meaning of the term " necessity" as used by himself to 
imply "that those things are really about to happen which God has 
foreseen." It is not our business to decide whether Wesley's misrep- 
resentation of the passage was the result of a want of information, or 
of something else. 

V. (Book 3, chap. 23, sec. 7.) "God not only foresaw that Adam 
would fall, but also ordained that he should." The design of this is 
obviously to convict Calvin of teaching foreordination in such a sense 
as to imply that sin is brought about or efficiently caused by the Di- 
vine decree. But no person of candor would ever understand Calvin 
thus. "God," says Calvin, "not only foresaw the fall of the first 
man, and the ruin of his posterity in him, but also arranged all by 
the determination of his own will." " It belongs to his power to rule 
and govern all things by his hand." " He knew that it was more 
suitable to his Almighty goodness to bring good out of evil, than not 
to suffer (or permit) evil to exist," and therefore "ordained the life 
of angels and men in such a manner as to exhibit in it, first, what free 
will was capable of doing, and afterward, what could be effected by 
the blessings of his grace and the sentence of his justice." Here the 
very section which is perverted to mean that Adam sinned necessarily, 
by force of the Divine decree — this very section affirms that Adam was 
an example of " what free agency was capable of doing!" We should be 
glad to indulge the thought that this was the effect of ignorance. 

VI. (Book 3, chap. 24, sec. 8.) "He sinned, because God so or- 
dained" — " because the Lord saw good." The object of this reference 
is the same with the previous one. There is nothing in the place re- 
ferred to, bearing even the most distant resemblance to the professed 
extract. In chap. 23, sec. 8, we read — "The first man fell because 
the Lord had determined it should so happen." "He determined 
thus, only because he foresaw it would tend to the just illustration of 
the glory of his name." But no person willing to do justice to Calvin, 



FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 319 

would ever think of interpreting this to mean that Adam sinned ne- 
cessarily by force of God's decree. For besides the proof already 
given, that Calvin taught that sin was ordained permissively (though 
not by a bare permission), in the very same section, and within a few 
lines of the supposed extract, we read — " Man falls according to the 
(permissive) appointment of Divine Providence; but he falls by his 
own fault." "They insist that God permits the destruction of the 
impious, but does not will it. But what reason shall we assign for 
his permitting it, but because it is his will (to permit it). It is not 
probable, however, that man procured his own destruction by the 
mere permission, without any appointment of God." (In other words, 
without his having appointed to overrule the fall of man to his own 
glory.) "Besides," continues Calvin," "their perdition depends on 
the Divine predestination in such a manner that the cause and matter cf 
it are found in themselves." "Wherefore, let us rather contemplate 
the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of mankind, 
than search after a hidden and altogether incomprehensible one, in the 
predestination of God." These passages, Wesley, if he had ever read 
the book, must have known to be there. The very section supposed 
to be quoted by the tract to convict Calvin of holding that God ap- 
points or decrees sin, so that it comes to pass by his efficacious and 
irresistible will — this very section affirms that "man sinned by his 
own fault" — and that the cause and matter of his perdition is in him- 
self! ! 

VII. (Book 3, chap. 23, sec. 7.) They deny that the Scripture 
says God decreed Adam's fall. They say he might have chosen either 
to fall or not : and that God foreordained only to treat him according 
to his desert. As if God had created the noblest of all his creatures, 
without foreordaining what should become of him." The design of 
this reference, as of the previous ones, is to convict Calvin of teaching 
that sin comes to pass necessarily, that men must do just what they 
do, and that they sin under the impelling influence of God's will, ne- 
cessarily and irresistibly. But this is an utter misrepresentation of 
Calvin's meaning. "They maintain," he says, "that he (Adam) was 
possessed of free choice, that he might be the author of his own fate 
(this Calvin does not dispute) ; but that God decreed nothing more 
than to treat him according to his desert." Calvin admits that Adam 
was possessed of free choice. Thus, Book 1, chap. 15, sec. 8. "Adam 
could have stood if he would, since he fell merely by his own will." 
" His choice of good and evil was free." "He was the voluntary pro- 
curer of his own destruction." But he utterly denies that God de- 



320 APPENDIX I. 

ereed "nothing more than to treat him according to his desert." And 
in the very same section he goes on to explain his meaning — that "it 
belongs to Divine power to rule and govern all things by his hand," 
and " to bring good out of evil." And he rejects the idea that "God 
had created the noblest of his creatures -without any determinate 
end" — that is, foreseeing his fall, he determined so to rule and govern 
his apostasy and its effects by his hand, as in the end to make the 
wrath of man to praise him, and the remainder to restrain, to the glory 
of his great name. Every one must perceive what an utter perversion 
of the passage is made by the author of the tract. 

VIII. (Book 3, chap. 31, sec. 1.) " All men are not created for the 
same end ; but some are foreordained to eternal life ; others to eter- 
nal damnation. So according as every man was created for the one 
end or the other, we say he was elected or predestinated to life, or 
reprobated." This reference is to chapter 31, whereas there are only 
25 chapters in the book. The stereotyped volume of tracts has it 
chap. 21, sec. 1 — but this too is a blunder. After considerable search, 
we found in chap. 21, sec. 5, a passage which bears a strong resem- 
blance to the professed extract ; but from the numerous gross errors in 
these references, we must suppose that the author of the tract had 
never seen the original work, but was the humble copyist of some pre- 
ceding bungler. It must be admitted that Calvin employs very strong 
language, though perhaps not stronger than the Apostle Jude, speak- 
ing of "certain men crept in unawares," "ungodly men," "who were 
of old ordained to this condemnation" (Jude 4) : nor stronger than 
Peter (1 Pet. 2:8), "Being disobedient, whereunto also they were 
appointed:" nor stronger than Wesley — "God foreappointed all dis- 
obedient unbelievers to damnation, not without, but according to their 
works, from the foundation of the world:" or as he afterward 
explains himself— "God eternally reprobated all disobedient unbe- 
lievers, as such, to damnation." If our Methodist friends exclaim, 
"horrible!" "most horrible!!" we cannot help it. There it stands 
in their own approved standard writings. No Calvinist teaches repro- 
bation in stronger terms than those, and as to the Presbyterian Con- 
fession, it does not even employ the term "reprobation." See also refer- 
ence 15, for Calvin's views of man's being created for a certain end." 

IX. (Book 3, chap. 21, sec. 7.) " God hath once for all appointed, 
by an eternal and unchangeable decree, to whom he would give salva- 
tion, and whom he would devote to destruction." We have just seen 
how plainly and forcibly Mr. Wesley and his followers teach " eternal 
reprobation," or reprobation to "damnation," of "all disobedient 



FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 321 

unbelievers, according to God's foreknowledge of all their works, from 
the foundation of the world." And what is still more remarkable, in 
the tract, "Predestination calmly considered," they say, "This decree 
(of reprobation) without doubt God will not change, and man cannot 
resist." (Dock Tracts, p, 15.) So that they teach not only that 
"reprobation to damnation" is eternal, but that it is unchangeable and 
irresistible ! 

X. (Book 3, chap. 22, sec. 1.) " So the vulgar think, that God, as 
he foresees every man will deserve, elects them to life, or devotes them 
to death and damnation." Allen has it — "It is a notion commonly 
entertained, that God adopts as his children such as he foreknows will 
be deserving of his grace ; and devotes to the damnation of death others 
whose dispositions he sees will be inclined to wickedness and impiety." 
With regard to man's "deserving Divine grace," we need only quote 
Article 9 of the Methodist standards, viz. "We are accounted right- 
eous only for the merit of our Lord, and not for our own works or 
deservings !" But that Calvin did maintain that the wicked are " de- 
voted to death for their evil deserts," has been already shown. 
"Their perdition depends on the Divine predestination in such a 
manner that the cause and matter of it are found in themselves." 
" The evident cause of condemnation," he says, " is the corrupt nature 
of mankind." (Book 3, chap. 23, sec. 8.) "It remains now to be seen 
why the Lord does that which it is evident he does. If it be replied 
that this is done because men have deserved it by their impiety, wick- 
edness and ingratitude, it will be a just and true observation." (Book 
3, chap. 24, sec. 14.) The prominent object before Calvin's mind, in 
the passage quoted in the tract, is " the distinction between different 
persons, as it appears in the grace and providence of God." He is 
speaking of what Turretine and modern Calvinists call " comparative 
election and reprobation" — in other words, of the reason why, from 
the mass of mankind, all by nature equally and utterly undeserving, 
God subdues, converts, and saves one, and that one oftentimes the 
"publican and harlot," the most abandoned or profane; while others 
are left, in many cases the most moral and decent in their outward 
deportment. In this view of the subject, the passage has altogether a 
different meaning from what it is made to bear in Wesley's tract. 
Calvin takes for granted that all are " corrupt," and justly exposed to 
Divine wrath ; whereas he is quoted as teaching that men are devoted 
to death without any respect to their deserts. "We .teach," adds 
Calvin, "nothing but that God has always been at liberty to bestow 
his grace on whom he chooses." But the very fact of his bestowing 



322 APPENDIX I. 

grace, supposes the recipients to be undeserving, or deserving of death. 
By wresting a sentence or part of a sentence out of its connection, the 
Bible can be made to teach Atheism. 

XL (Book 3, chap. 23, sec. 6.) "God of his own good pleasure 
ordains that many should be born, who are from the womb doomed 
to inevitable damnation." The original Latin of this last phrase 
is "cert® morti," which every school boy knows to mean "certain 
death," and is a very different thing from " inevitable damna- 
tion." An event which is infallibly foreknown, is " certain ;" but as it 
respects the agents in its accomplishment, it may not be " inevitable ; " 
that is, they may bring it about in the exercise of perfect freedom of 
choice, and may act otherwise if they choose so to act ; although it is 
infallibly foreknown how they will choose to act. Besides, if it be 
true, as Wesley says, that " God Preappoints or predestinates all diso- 
.bedient unbelievers to damnation, according to his foreknowledge of 
all their works, from the foundation of the world" — "if (from eter- 
nity) he refuses or reprobates all disobedient unbelievers, as such, to 
damnation, how does this differ from "dooming them to certain death 
from the womb ?" " Can you split this hair ?" 

XII. (Book 3, chap. 24, sec. 12.) " God has his judgments toward 
the reprobates, whereby he executes his decree concerning them." (In 
other words, "he refuses or reprobates all disobedient unbelievers, as 
such, to damnation.") As many therefore as he created to live mis- 
erably and then perish everlastingly, these, that they may be brought 
to the end for which they were created, he sometimes deprives of the 
possibility ("opportunity" — Allen) of hearing the word, and at other 
times, by the preaching thereof, blinds and stupefies them the more." 
The first important inquiry, in order to a right understanding of this 
passage, is, what did Calvin mean by man being " created for a certain 
end ?" If it can be shown that he employs language equally strong, 
afmost the very same terms, in reference to all, both elect and repro- 
bate, the force of the objection will be done away. Well, look at 
Book 2, chap. 16, sec. 3. "In respect of our corrupt nature, and the 
succeeding depravity of our lives, we are all really offensive to God, 
guilty in his sight, and born to the damnation of hell!" The 
meaning evidently is, that men without exception (one only excepted), 
are justly oxposed to that awful doom, sin having been permitted to 
enter the world, "and so death has passed upon all men, for that all 
have sinned.". That God oftentimes " deprives men of the opportunity 
of hearing the gospel ;" that he sometimes "removes the candlestick 
out of his place " (Rev. 2 : 5), in just punishment for misimprovemeut 



FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 323 

of past privileges, we did not suppose was denied by any Christian ; nor 
that, for the same reason, he sometimes permits the gospel to become 
a savor of death unto death, so as "to blind and stupefy the more." 
Do Methodists deny this? If any thing further need be said to ex- 
plain the extract from Calvin, we refer to the section before quoted for 
the following: " For notwithstanding we are sinners through our own 
fault, yet we are still his creatures ; notwithstanding we have brought 
death upon ourselves, yet he had created us for life." 

XIII. (Book 3, chap. 24, sec. 13.) "He calls to them, that they 
may be more deaf; he kindles a light, that they may be more blind; 
he brings his doctrine to them, that they may be more ignorant," &c. 
In this passage Calvin is expounding Isaiah 6 : 9, 10 — " Go and tell this 
people (saith God to the prophet), Hear ye indeed, but understand 
not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this 
people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they 
see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with 
their heart, and convert, and be healed." See also Mark 4 : 12 ; 
Luke 8:10; John 12 : 40. If Calvin has erred in the use of language, 
he is certainly in very good company. But the tract represents him 
as intending to convey the idea that God by direct and positive influ- 
ence upon the minds of the wicked, " hardens, blinds and stupefies " 
their souls in sin, so that he is the author of their wickedness. But 
he himself elsewhere interprets his language to mean, " the righteous 
judgment of God," or " the righteous vengeance of God, in abandon- 
ing the hearts of the stubborn and rebellious to Satan, to be confirmed 
in obstinacy." But Dr. W. Fisk, speaking in the name of the General 
Conference, says : " God blinds men and hardens their hearts judicially, 
as a just punishment for their abuse of their agency." Disc. p. 9. 
Speaking of Satan, Calvin observes: " He being naturally wicked, has 
not the least inclination toward obedience to the Divine will, but is 
wholly bent on insolence and rebellion. It therefore arises from him- 
self and his wickedness that he opposes God — but since he holds him 
tied and bound with the bridle of his power, he executes only those 
things which are Divinely permitted ; and thus whether he will or not, 
he obeys his Creator, being constrained to fulfill any service to which 
he impels him." Book 1, chap. 14, sec. 17. "They (the wicked) can 
lay no blame upon God, for they find in themselves nothing but evil; 
and in him only a legitimate use of their wickedness." Chap. 17, sec. 
5. "This exception must always be. made, that the cause of sin, 
whose roots perpetually dwell in the sinner himself, does not arise from 
God." Com. on Bom. 1 : 24. 



324 APPENDIX I. 

XIV. (Book 1, chap. 17, sec. 5.) "Thieves, murderers and other 
malefactors, are God's instruments which he uses to execute what he 
hath decreed in himself." The design of this extract is to convict 
Calvin of teaching that "God by his present irresistible power and 
will, is the author of those actions which are sins, and of the sins 
themselves." "I admit," says Calvin, "that thieves, homicides, and 
other malefactors, are instruments of Divine Providence, whom the 
Lord uses for the execution of the judgments which he hath appointed." 
By examining the scope of the passage, it will be found that the design 
of Calvin was directly the opposite of that which Wesley charges upon 
him. ''Persons," he says, " inconsiderately and erroneously ascribe 
all past events to the absolute providence of God." "Since neither 
thefts, nor adulteries, nor homicides, are perpetrated without the inter- 
vention of the Divine will, 'why,' they ask, ' shall a homicide be pun- 
ished for having slain him whose life the Lord had terminated ? If all 
such characters are subservient to the Divine will, why shall they be 
punished?'" "But I deny," replies Calvin, "that they serve the 
Divine will. For we cannot say that he who is influenced by a wicked 
heart, acts in obedience to God." " But it is said, if he would not per- 
mit it, we should not do it. This I grant. But do we perform evil 
actions with the design of pleasing him? We precipitate ourselves, 
into them," &c. Is this the same as saying, "men commit sinful ac- 
tions by the present irresistible power and will of God ?" Calvin is 
speaking of the "legitimate use" which God makes of his unholj 
creatures, and not at all of his irresistible power in causing their ac- 
tions. "So when the matter and guilt of evil reside in a bad man, 
why should God be supposed to contract any defilement, if he uses his 
service according to his own pleasure :" in other words, if he " makes 
his wrath to praise him," &c. The use which the author of the tract 
makes of Calvin's language, "can hardly be reconciled with a guile- 
less Christianity." 

XV. (Book 1, chap. 17, sec. 11.) " The devil and wicked men are 
so held in on every side by the hand of God, that they cannot conceive, 
or contrive, or execute any mischief any further than God himself 
doth not permit only, but command. Nor are they only held in fetters, 
but compelled also as with a bridle to perform obedience to those com- 
mands." This is given as a Calvinistic answer to the question, "How 
does God make angels and men sin ?" and is designed to convict Calvin 
and Calvinists of holding that " God procures adultery, cursings, ly- 
ings, and by his working on the hearts of the wicked, bends and stirs 
them to do evil." But the author of " the Institutes" is grossly 



FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. f25 

slandered in this representation. It is remarkable that the Socin- 
ians, Papists and Pelagians of Turretioe's day, employed the same 
passage to bring odium upon Calvin and his theological sentiments. 
Turretine replies that it was cited dishonestly ('mala fide'), "and con- 
trary to the mind of the author." "Por the scope of the passage is 
to fortify the minds of the pious against fear and anxiety, inasmuch 
as they know that the devil and wicked men are not permitted to roam 
without restraint, but are under the government and direction of 
Divine Providence." Calvin has no reference at all to the cause of 
sin, but is speaking of the limits which God in his providence sets to 
the rage and malice of the wicked ; and thence he derives a topic of 
consolation to the pious, "when they recollect that the devil and the 
whole army of the wicked are so restrained by Divine power, that they 
can neither conceive of any hostility against us, nor after having con- 
ceived it, form a plan for its accomplishment, nor even move a finger 
toward the execution of such plan, any further than he hath permitted 
and even commanded them. They are not only bound by his chain, but 
compelled to do him service." Is this the same as saying that " God 
bends and stirs them to commit adulteries, cursings, lyings ?" 

But it is proper to inquire, What is the meaning of Calvin, when he 
represents Satan and wicked men as so controlled and restrained by 
Divine power, as to do what God not only permits, but commands. He 
doubtless refers to such cases as that of Job. God said, "Behold, all 
that he hath is in thy power." This was said to Satan, in answer to bis 
insolent challenge, " Doth Job fear God for nought ? Put forth thy 
hand, &c. and he will curse thee to thy face." And the pious sufferer 
himself ascribes his affliction not to Satan, but to God. " The Lord 
gave, and the Lord hath taken away," &c. And again, "the Lord 
said unto Satan, Behold he is in thine hand, but save his life." Chap. 
2 : 6. "Even the devil himself," remarks Calvin, " dared not to at- 
tempt any thing against Job, without his permission and command." 
(Book 1, chap. 16, sec. 7.) The conduct of Shimei in cursing David 
is another example. "So let him curse," said the afflicted monarch, 
"because the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David. Let him alone, 
and let him curse, for the Lord hath bidden him." 2 Sam. 16 ; 10, 
11. "When he confesses Shimei's maledictions to proceed from the 
Divine command," remarks Calvin, " he by no means commends his 
obedience as fulfilling a Divine precept; but acknowledging his tongue 
as the scourge of God, he patiently submits to the chastisement. Let 
it be remembered that whilst Gcd, by means of the impious, fulfills 
his secret decrees, they are not excusable as though they were obedi- 
28 



32G APPENDIX I. 

ent to his precepts, which they wantonly and intentionally violate." 
(Book 1, chap. 18, sec. 4.) "Augustine somewhere makes the fol- 
lowing correct distinction : that they sin proceeds from themselves ; 
that in sinning they perform this or that particular action, is from the 
power of God, who divideth the darkness according to his pleasure." 
(Book 2, chap. 4, sec. 4.) Is this the same as saying, God makes angels 
and men sin ! Is it consistent with truth and righteousness to charge 
Calvin with teaching that " God makes men and angels, sin by his 
present irresistible power?" "Oh, shame, where is thy blush !" 

To fasten the most impious sentiments upon Calvinists, the " Dia- 
logue" next adduces several references to Dr. Twisse, who was the 
honored Moderator of the Westminster Assembly, as follows : 

I. "All things come to pass by the efficacious and irresistible will of 
God." But this was originally the charge of Arminius against Cal- 
vinism, "efficaci Dei voluntate, et cui resisti nequeat omnia evenire," 
not the language of Twisse. It is true, Dr. Twisse professes his will- 
ingness to adopt this language with certain explanations, the design 
and purport of which may be learned from his definition of the Divine 
will or decree — "Propositum Dei, ut faciat vel permittat aliquid;" 
that is, " the purpose of God to do or permit anything." Would not 
Christian men be ashamed of such perversion of the sentiments of any 
author? 

II. (Vindicise Gracise, pars 3, p. 19.) "It is impossible anything 
should ever be done but that to which God impels the will of man." 
Dr. T. defines the will of God to be "his purpose to do or permit any 
thing." He does not admit that the Divine will (voluntas Dei) is ne- 
cessarily efficient, in the sense of being the cause of all events ; but he 
asserts merely that nothing can come to pass without the will (either 
efficacious or permissive) of God. Dr. T. also takes much pains to 
show that the Divine will does not interfere with the perfect freedom 
of men in any of their moral actions. "Ego constanter nego," says 
he, " energeticum Dei decretum, quicquam praejudicare libertati 
creatures, sed potious stabilire et corroborare." In connection with 
Wesley's extract, Dr. Twisse also largely explains the distinction be- 
tween what is physical in moral action, and what is moral, "bonum 
aut malum." Of the act, considered as physical, he admits that God 
is the author, "for in him we live, and move, and have our being." 
But this is another and a very different thing from "impelling" the 
will of man to wickedness, which he utterly disclaims and strenuously 
denies to be a part of his scheme, as will more fully appear under the 
next reference. This distinction will also explain what Dr. T. means 



FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 327 

by saying "God is the author of that action which is sinful," &c. He 
is the author of the action (physically considered), but not the author 
of that which is sinful in the action. And Wesley, as published by the 
Conference, says the same thing: "God produces the action which is 
sinful. It is his work and his will. And yet the sinfulness of the action 
is neither his work nor will."* Thus Twisse and Wesley agree. 

III. (Vindicise, pars 3, p. 22.) "God necessitates them only to 
the act of sin, not to the deformity of sin." This is not a fair trans- 
lation of any passage we have been able to find. And the latter part 
of the professed quotation, "when God makes angels or men sin," &c. 
we are persuaded is a gross misrepresentation. " Quid quod hodie," 
says Twisse, "satis constat inter theologos, impossibile esse quicquam 
fieri, cujus auctor non sit Deus, quoad substaniiam actus. Neque minus 
luculentum est fieri non posse ut Deus sit auctor malitiae aut peccati, 
qua peccatum est." That is, "It is satisfactorily proved among the- 
ologians of the present day, that nothing can take place of which God 
is not the author, as respects the substance of the act. Nor is it less 
evident that it cannot be that God should be the author of evil or sin, as 
respects its moral turpitude." Is this the same as to say, "God 
makes angels and men sin !" And in regard to the views of Dr. 
Twisse on the subject of necessity, the following are his own words : 
"Whereas we see some things come to pass necessarily, some contin- 
gently, so God hath ordained that all things shall come to pass : but 
necessary things necessarily, and contingent things contingently, that 
is, avoidably, and with a possibility of not coming to pass — for every 
university scholar knows this to be the notion of contingency." Is 
this equivalent to saying that " all things come to pass by the effica- 
cious and irresistible will of God?" 

IV. Piscator is next misrepresented in this Arminian " Dialogue," 
as follows: "God made Adam and Eve for this very purpose, that 
they might be tempted and led into sin ; and by force of his decree it 
could not otherwise be but they must sin." "The reprobates more 
especially, who -were predestinated to damnation,^ &c. "We neither 
can do more good than we do, nor less evil than we do: because God 
from eternity has precisely ordained that both the good and the evil 
should be so done." One part of these extracts, which we have put in 
italics, reminds us of Wesley's "horrible" decree of reprobation, viz. 
"God predestinates or Preappoints all disobedient unbelievers to 
damnation, according to his foreknowledge of all their works from the 
foundation of the world." The writings of Piscator referred to, we 

* Original Sin, part 3, sec. 7. Misc. Works, vol. ii. 



328 APPENDIX I. 

have not been able to procure, but the following extract from his com- 
mentary on Acts 2: 23, will exhibit his real sentiments: "Impioruui 
scelera pendent a decreto Dei, quia Deus decrevit permittere Satanoe, 
ut eos ad scelera impellat. Nee Deus malitiam instillet, nee illi respi- 
ciant ad voluntatem Dei, sed ad explendum libidines suas, idque contra 
expressa interdicta Dei." That is, " The wicked actions of impious 
men depend upon the Divine decree ; because God ha3 decreed to permit 
Satan to instigate them to deeds of crime. Neither does God instil 
evil into their minds, nor do they have respect to the Divine will, but 
to the fulfillment of their evil desires and lusts, and that contrary to 
his express prohibition." Is this the same as, " God procures adultery, 
cursings, lyings," and "by force of his decree it could not otherwise 
be but they must sin ?" Oh shame ! 

V. Zanchius is represented as teaching that " God's first constitu- 
tion was that some should be destined to eternal ruin ; and to this end 
their sins were ordained, and denial of grace in order to their sins." 
But there is no such passage in the section of the works of Zanchius 
referred to in the tract; and the accuracy and fairness of the extraet 
may be learned from the following, which are the express words of 
that author: " Deus, ut quotidie per mittit tam pios quam impios labi 
in peccata; sicquoque ab eterno decrevit ut omnes peccare permitte- 
ret. Quare non falso dictum universos homines eo fuisse ordinatos, ut 
permitterentur peccare ;" that is "God, as he daily permits the good 
as well as the wicked to fall into sin, so also from eternity decreed 
to permit all men to sin. Wherefore it is correctly said that all men 
were so far the objects of ordination, that they might be permitted to 
sin." 

VI. Zanchius (De natura Dei, pp. 553, 554) is next quoted as fol- 
lows : " Both the reprobate and the elect were foreordained to sin, as 
sin, that the glory of God might be declared thereby." We have 
already shown that this author taught directly the reverse of the sen- 
timent charged against him. Hear him still further : "Deus ut in 
nemine, autor est peccati, quatenus peccatum est; ita neminem ad pecca- 
tum quatenus peccatum est, admittendum predestinavit. Nam odit 
peccatum Deus, ut peccatum est. Ac proinde ad illud quatenus tale 
est, neminem dicendus predestinasse," &c. In these extracts the author 
asserts, directly in the face of Wesley's quotation, that God does not 
foreordain sin, as sin ! ! The following passages are from his treatise 
on "Absolute Predestination," translated by Toplady : "By the pur- 
pose or decree of God, we mean his determinate counsel whereby he 
did from all eternity preordain whatever he should do, or would permit 



FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 329 

to be done in time." " Predestination, as regards the reprobate, is 
that eternal, most holy, sovereign and immutable act of God's will, 
whereby he hath determined to leave (or permit) some men to perish 
in their sins, and to be justly punished for them." "God does not 
(as we are slanderously reported to affirm) compel the wicked to sin, 
as the rider spurs on an unwilling horse. God only says in effect 
that tremendous word, Let them alone." "'Tis most certainly his 
will to permit sin, but he cannot be himself the author of it." " He 
alone is entitled to the name of the true God, who governs all things, 
and without whose will (efficient or permissive) nothing can be done." 
"From what has been said," continues Zanchius, "it follows that 
Augustine, Luther, Bucer, and other learned divines, are not to be 
blamed for asserting that God may in some sense be said to will the 
being and commission of sin. For was this contrary to his determin- 
ing will of permission, either he would not be omnipotent, or sin could 
have no place." "No one can deny that God permits sin; but he 
neither permits it ignorantly nor unwillingly; therefore knowingly 
and willingly. Luther steadfastly maintains this in his book, ' De 
Servo Arbitrio,' (The will a slave). However it should be carefully 
noticed, 1st. That God's permission of sin does not arise from his 
taking delight in it. Sin, as sin, is the abominable thing that his soul 
hateth. 2. That God's free and voluntary permission of sin, lays no 
man under any forcible or compulsive necessity of committing it. Nor 
is he in the proper sense accessory to it, but only remotely and nega- 
tively so, inasmuch as he could, if he pleased, absolutely prevent it." 
In view of these extracts, we leave the reader to decide whether Zan- 
chius has been fairly dealt with by Wesley and his Arminian followers. 
VII. Peter Martyr (Comment, in Rom. pp. 36-413) comes next, as 
follows : "God supplies wicked men with opportunities of sinning, and 
inclines their hearts thereto. He blinds, deceives and seduces them. 
He, by his working on their hearts, bends and stirs them to do evil." 
Now with this compare, or rather contrast the following: " God doth 
not properly stir up man unto sin; but yet he useth the sins of wicked 
men, and also guideth them, lest they should pass beyond their 
bounds." " The defect, which properly is sin, proceedeth not of God ; 
but the action, which is a natural thing, wherein the defect sticketh, 
cannot be drawn forth but by the common influence of God." Is this 
the same as to say, "God, by his working on their hearts, bends and 
stirs them to evil," &c? Our quotations are from his " Common 
Places." His Commentary on Romans, as also the works of Zuin^le 
on " Providence," we have not been able to procure. But from the 
28* 



330 APPENDIX I. 

specimens which have passed before us, we may readily suppose they 
have not been handled more fairly than the others. 

VIII. We cannot close the discussion, without noticing the fact that, 
besides the instrumentality of their Tract Society, the Sabbath school 
is made to contribute to the same unhallowed enterprise. In No. 32, 
p. 96, of the "Methodist Sunday School and Youth's Library," they 
state the doctrine of Predestination as follows : " That God has by an 
eternal and unchangeable decree, predestinated to eternal damnation 
by far the greater part of mankind, and that absolutely, without any 
respect to their works, but only for the showing of the glory of his 
justice. And that for the bringing this about, he hath appointed these 
miserable souls necessarily to walk in their wicked ways, that so his 
justice may lay hold of them." To those who have read the forego- 
ing Letters, and the previous parts of this Appendix, we need not say 
that this is not the doctrine taught in the Presbyterian Confession, and 
by our approved writers. The minister who should dare broach such 
a sentiment in the Presbyterian church, would be brought to trial for 
heresy and impiety. The author of the Sunday school book puts the 
passage in quotation marks ; but except by such unfair and dishonor- 
able treatment as we have already exposed, we challenge the preachers 
to produce such a passage from any of our approved authors. 

To fasten the impression upon the minds of the young and unsus- 
pecting that this is a true exhibition of the doctrine, they are pre- 
sented with the usual array of references to Calvin and others. And 
lest the point and direction of the whole should be misunderstood, the 
Presbyterian Confession of Faith comes in for its share of perversion 
and misrepresentation. We have a repetition of Dr. Fisk's unright- 
eous quotation of chap. 3, sec. 5 : " Chosen in Christ unto everlasting 
glory, without any foresight of faith and good works, as conditions or 
causes moving him thereto." The clause in italics, Dr. Fisk and the 
Sunday school book both carefully omit, for a very obvious reason. 
"The phrases, 'eternal election' and 'eternal decree of election,'" 
remarks Watson, "can in common sense mean only an eternal pur- 
pose to elect or choose out of the world, and sanctify in time by the 
Spirit and blood of Christ." " This is a doctrine which no one will 
contend with them." Very well. Is it supposed then that this eter- 
nal purpose "to choose and sanctify" was founded on a foresight of 
faith and good works ; in other words, on a foresight of sanctification ? 
That is, that God foresaw the sanctification of certain persons, and 
then purposed to choose and sanctify them ? Truly, it is a useless 
kind of election this, to purpose to sanctify those whom he foresaw to 
be previously sanctified! 



THE HEATHEN WORLD. 331 

'Again : In quoting chap. 3, sec. 7, of our Confession, this Sabbath 
school volume suppresses the clause which we italicize, as follows : 
" The rest of mankind, God was pleased for the glory of his sovereign 
power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain to dishonor and 
wrath, for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice." 

Other equally humiliating examples might be adduced from this 
volume of instruction for youth, of the strange methods adopted by some 
professedly Christian men, to promote Christianity. We can only say, 
whether these things be the alphabet or the higher branches of "sin- 
less perfection," «' my soul, come not thou into their secret ; unto 
iheir assembly, mine honor, be not thou united !" 



APPENDIX II. 

THE HEATHEN WORLD— ITS STATE AND PROSPECTS. 

This is the subject of the Vllth chapter of the "Objections to 
Calvinism." As this topic did not properly fall under any of the 
preceding heads, we append a few strictures here. 

1. The Presbyterian Confession (chap. 10, sec. 4) teaches that men 
"cannot be saved in any other way than by truly coming to Christ; 
though they be never so diligent to frame their lives according to the 
light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess." Or as 
otherwise expressed (chap. 1), " The light of nature and the works of 
creation and Providence, * * * leave men inexcusable, * * * but 
are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will which 
is necessary to salvation." Such we suppose to be the broad ground of 
our common Christianity. The opposite is Deism. We can hardly 
imagine that Arminians design to sympathize with infidels. 

2. But while our Confession, in the passages referred to, speaks of 
the ordinary dealings of the Judge of the whole earth toward his fallen 
creatures, and represents the revealed "knowledge of God and his 
will" as "necessary to salvation" (for if there be any other way, why 
did Christ suffer the unspeakable agonies of the cross), these passages 
of course have no reference to infants, and adults who are idiots. Nor 
does our Confession teach that there are no cases of extraordinary appli- 
cation of saving grace to the souls of those adults who have never 
heard of the Saviour. Calvinists indulge the pleasing hope, that 
especially in the last struggle, some of the heathen may be thus 



332 APPENDIX II. 

extraordinarily enlightened and saved. It must be admitted, however, 
that the Scriptures say very little on this subject ; and here they are 
closely imitated by our standards. 

It is not true, therefore, that "Presbyterians believe in the inevita- 
ble damnation of the whole heathen world."* Ridgely is an accredited 
authority, and was certainly a Calvinist, yet these are his wcrds: 
" We know not when, to whom, or by what means God may reveal 
Christ to those who sit in darkness. * * * As for the possibility of 
his revealing Christ to those who do not sit under the sound of the 
gospel, we will not deny it." Again: "Others not willing, with the 
Deists, to set aside the necessity of Divine Revelation, have supposed 
that God may lead many of the heathen into the knowledge of Christ, 
before they go out of the world, by some secret methods not to be dis- 
cerned by us."f This, he says, was Dr. Watts' judgment, and with 
this sentiment he appears to accord. 

3. No person of common sense has ever questioned the following 
statement of Ridgely : " The heathen shall not be condemned for not 
believing in Christ, of whom they never heard." When, therefore, 
Messrs. Foster and Simpson say, " If a heathen may justly be damned 
for not having faith in Christ, of whom he never heard," &c. &c. their 
eloquence " wastes its sweetness on the desert air!" 

Laying out of view entirely the millions of infant and imbecile hea- 
then, who doubtless experience the saving benefits of the infinite sac- 
rifice of Calvary, though in an extraordinary manner — the Calvinist 
bases his expectation of the salvation of a part of the adult heathen 
world upon grounds altogether different from those alleged by Armin- 
ians. The Calvinist founds his hope of their salvation on the Divine 
mercy — the Arminian founds his upon the justice of God. That this is 
the true difference we proceed to prove. 

4. " Are the heathen all necessarily damned," * * * say Fos- 
ter and Simpson, " because they did not live up to the light they had ? 
But can this be shown, that no heathen ever acted according to his 
best light ?"% Or as it is otherwise expressed — "Are those compre- 
hended among the perishing, who do the best they can according to the 
limited light they enjoy V But do these authors really suppose that 
there is such a class of persons in heathen lands? Where is the 
Christian who has the presumption to claim that "he always lives up 
to his best light" — "that he always does the best he can!" Such a 
person would be a bright specimen of "sinless perfection," and would 
be hard to find among the heathen; since he is "a rare bird" even 

* Objections, p. 201. f Body of Divinity, vol. ii. p. 490. % Objections, p. 205. 



THE HEATHEN WORLD. 333 

under all the influences of the gospel! If this therefore be the foun- 
dation of the Arminian belief that the heathen are saved without the 
gospel, it is a sandy one. It is assuredly not the Christian foundation, 
which is Christ and Him crucified — not "doing the best we can." 
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according 
to his mercy he saved us" — "not of works lest any man should boast." 
" There is no other name given under heaven among men whereby we 
can be saved but the name of Jesus Christ." Indeed if "doing the 
best we can" will secure the salvation of the soul, it remains to be 
shown that there was any necessity for the Saviour to suffer and die — 
since men might have done " the best they could" as well without, as 
with a Saviour. Will it be replied, that through his sufferings and 
death the heathen without the gospel, receive grace and strength ? 
Even granting the truth of the sentiment (which to say the least, is 
exceedingly doubtful), is it not an admitted principle that obligation 
increases in proportion as grace and strength are increased ; that duty 
is in the ratio of privilege and opportunity, and that to whom much is 
given, of him will much be required ?" How then can the death of 
Christ aid the heathen to "do the best he can," since in proportion as 
it furnishes strength, it adds to his obligations ? Truly, if doing "the 
best they can according to the light they enjoy" be the condition of 
salvation, it would seem that the less light the better, because the less 
their duty and the more easy to comply with its requirements. In- 
deed the idea of Christ by his atonement communicating grace and 
strength to the heathen to "do the best he can," is intrinsically ab- 
surd. Who ever speaks in this way of matters of ordinary life — for 
example, who would speak of communicating strength to an infant to 
walk as soon or as fast as it can ; or to a man to leap as high as he 
can? It involves this contradiction, that it first supposes the ability to 
do a certain thing, and then in the communication of additional 
strength, implies an inability to do the same thing. 

5. With the limitations now stated, let us look at the testimony of 
the Holy Scriptures on this subject. Do they teach that ordinarily 
salvation may be secured without the preaching, hearing and reception 
of the gospel ? 

(i.) Listen to the Apostle Paul in reply to this inquiry. Rom. 10 : 
13-15. "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be 
saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not be- 
lieved? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not 
heard 1 And how shall they hear without a preacher ? And how 
Bhall they preach except they be sent ?" Salvation is bestowed upon 



334 APPENDIX II. 

" whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord" (Jesus). But they 
alone can "call on him" who "believe" in him: "but how shall they 
believe in him of whom they have not heard ?" How is it possible 
in stronger and more emphatic terms, to assert the necessity that the 
gospel should be heard, in order to be believed; or that faith, whether 
in Jew or heathen, civilized or uncivilized, " cometh by hearing, and 
hearing by the word of God." That, therefore, by which "faith 
cometh," and without which the Spirit of God demands, "how shall 
they believe and be saved ?" must needs be essential to salvation. 
This view of the subject is confirmed by the great commission of the 
risen Saviour, " Go preach the gospel to every creature : He that be- 
lieveth shall be saved," &c; thus distinctly recognizing the truth, that 
in order to faith or believing in Christ, the gospel must be preached 
and heard. Nor is the force of this argument evaded by alleging that 
it appears to exclude reading the Scriptures, and scriptural tracts 
from the class of means by which "faith cometh." Preaching and 
hearing the gospel were the almost exclusive means in primitive times, 
when as yet copies of the Scriptures were very scarce and difficult of 
access. Since, therefore, the Saviour's command, " Go preach the 
gospel," did not exclude, but rather embraced the other appropriate 
methods of bringing the gospel in direct contact with the soul; so, for the 
same reason, the argument of Paul must be regarded as equally com- 
prehensive. The great truth, however, is equally established in both 
cases, viz. that in order to faith and salvation, the gospel must be ex- 
hibited, and brought to bear in its redeeming and sanctifying power, 
upon the lost soul. 

(ii.) The same truth is taught in Rom. 2 : 12. "As many as have 
sinned without law, shall also perish without law." To sin without 
law is, if we mistake not, almost universally understood by Arminians 
themselves, to mean, to sin without the knowledge of revealed religion. 
The Apostle is speaking of " the Gentiles which have not the law," 
and which "have the work of the law written in their hearts," "their 
conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing or else ex- 
cusing" them in their conduct. Now, says Paul, as many of the hea- 
then as have sinned against the law of conscience, without the know- 
ledge of revealed religion, " shall perish." In the same connection 
of argument, he tells us that "all have sinned and come short of the 
glory of God," including both Jews and Gentiles ; and so far is he 
from finding room for a class of persons who are saved by doing " the 
best they can," that he speaks of "the righteousness of God, which is 
by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe ; for there 



THE HEATHEN WORLD. 335 

is no difference:" and again the question returns, "Low shall they be- 
lieve in him of whom they have not heard?" 

(iii.) A third proof of the perishing condition of the heathen is 
derived from the views which the early converts from heathenism were 
taught to entertain of their previous state and prospects. " Where- 
fore," says Paul to the Ephesian Christians, "remember that ye, 
being in time past Gentiles in the flesh who are called uncircum- 
cision," &c. " that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens 
from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of 
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." Eph. 2 : 11, 
12. Here is an inspired description of the condition of the heathen 
without the gospel. We have no reason to believe that the Ephesian 
converts had all been of the most abandoned and degraded cast, or that 
their character had differed materially from that of the mass of the 
Gentile world ; yet of these persons, without any exception, the hea- 
then state is pronounced by Inspiration to have been Christless and 
hopeless. If the Apostle Paul had entertained the Arminian notions 
of Messrs. Foster and Simpson, his discourse would probably have 
been something like the following : " Dear brethren, remember the 
estate from which you have been transferred. It is true that some of 
you were in a very bad condition ; and I don't wonder at it, for you 
neglected to improve the light (darkness ? Eph. 6 : 12, Col. 1 : 13), 
which you enjoyed : but thanks be to God, or to yourselves, there were 
some of you toho were doing the best you could according to the limited 
light (darkness? Eph. 5: 11, Thess. 5: 5) you enjoyed; and to say 
that you were 'without God' (original, atheists,) would be exceed- 
ingly 'repulsive and not calculated to do any good;' and to affirm 
that you had 'no hope' of salvation would be 'offensive' — 'an as- 
sertion of very doubtful character.' Indeed, to be plain with you, 
brethren, to be * without Christ,' without a true knowledge and an 
experimental acquaintance with Christianity and its great Author, is 
an evil as regards this life ; but as regards your prospects for eternal 
happiness, if you only ' do the best you can,' to be ' without Christ' 
is a very small disadvantage, if indeed it be any disadvantage at all. 
For ' to whom little is given, of him little will be required.' " 

We will not pursue the subject farther. When our Arminian 
friends publish their next book against Calvinism, it would add much 
to its value, if they would endeavor to understand the subject before 
they put pen to paper. It is a great pity that so much eloquent 
writing, especially in this chapter on "the Heathen World" — such 
powerful appeals and overwhelming outbursts — "fiendish cruelty" — 



336 APPENDIX. 

"unconscious babe damned" — "insatiable jaws" — "spirit shivers" — 
" soul mutinies" — "shrouds the universe" — "monster of cruelty" — 
" Moloch" — " damnation a million fold" — " deeper, hotter, more awful 
hell" — " devouring abyss" — " devouring crater" — " cover the heavens 
with dismay" — "horrid, horrid," &c. &c. ; it is a pity, we repeat, 
that such fine composition should be entirely lost. It may be all 
"strictly logical," as Bishop Simpson would say; but we Calvinists 
are so unfortunate as to be unable to perceive it. 



Note. — In our Letter XVII. p. 276, the meeting houses, parsonages and 
other property controlled by the traveling preachers, are said to have been 
estimated in 1843 at from four to five viillions of dollars. It was added 
that now (1860) the same property is worth probably not less than ten mil- 
lions. This estimate, however, is much too low. In the Address of the 
Bishops to the General Conference, in session at Buffalo, the value ^f "the 
churches and parsonages" alone, is estimated at twenty-one millions and 
nearly a quarter — being an increase in two years, " of the estimated value of 
church property, $3,341,624." 

'■ The Western Book Concern" reports sales of books for four years ending 
January 21, 1860, amounting to over one million one hundred and twenty- 
seven thousand dollars. What were the actual profits on these books wo are 
not informed. But the gross profits of their periodicals published at Cincin- 
nati, St. Louis and Chicago, for four years, are set down at eighty-nine thou- 
sand six hundred dollars. 

From these facts, some idea may be formed of the annual profits accruing 
at New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburgh, &g. 







^ 



V" ..-^J. 



/ * v ^ 



;• «r « 












f\. 



• S**4 



v.* 



<* *'T7i* ,0 







-•:•■** 






^°* . 









#++> v 



; .«5°* 



.v 



<* 






** _••••• <<t> 



V 



v ••: 






V 



"ov* 



'. ; *°^ '.' 



,0" 



* •!••» 




•J" , 



.• >°v 



>, *•"• 4 * 



=** .'/VaV ^. a* ♦ 






• . ■* 






«„ c<r . 










^ :jflH^ "of A^ra ^a 



» .4? ■*> •' 



* 



> ^ V 




A°+ 



*^ *^B^t r ^v *^| mentDate:Ma y2oo6 









PAPER PRESEHVATIC 

in Thomson Park Drive 

(724 n ,^ 2 T °T ShiP ' PAl6 ° 66 



,*' ♦ 









- %S .'. 









t .^ 'J 



jP-^k 













. "V 



^ < 
















LIBRARY BINDING ^*V « MfiSlsk ' ^*£ * jS ^gW ^t 

I HI 82 *,* ©tfi®i§» a>^ iWEJBg&Z 



J ST \^i! GUST,NE o* 



\5> *© • » • /V 



-084 d»m\ * .*<* .:«^tofc V « c ■ 



